VR Virtual Prototyping Application for Airplane Cockpit:

A Human-centred Design Validation

Miguel Nunes

, Emanuel Silva

, Nuno Sousa

, Emanuel Sousa

Eduardo Júlio Marques Nunes

and Iara Margolis

Center for Computer Graphic, Campus de Azurém, Guimarães, Braga, Portugal

AEROMEC - Aeródromo Municipal de Cascais, Hangar 6, 2785-632, Tires, São Domingos Rana, Portugal

Keywords: Usability, Intuitive Design, Virtual Reality, Handling, SAM, SUS, Aircraft Cockpit, Safety, Well-being.

Abstract: The present study aimed to assess how professionals from the aviation industry perceived the usability of an

application aimed at developing prototypes of airplane cockpits, in virtual reality, from a human-centred

design perspective. 12 participants from the aeronautical industry took part in the study. An evaluation using

the SUS (System Usability Scale) resulted in a final score of 81.3, while the results from the SAM (Self-

Assessment Manikin) indicated a neutral-positive trend towards the application. From participant’s

observations and comments, the application’s potential to improve airline security, pilot comfort, and cockpit

design efforts, was recognized and appreciated. Despite the positive interactions, some aspects of the

application were found to need further improvement, to better align with the expectations and needs of the

professionals towards which the application is being geared to.

1 INTRODUCTION

For companies to find success in the current

commercial market climate, they must plan, develop,

test, and release iterations and improvements to their

various products in increasingly shorter time spans

(Ottosson, 2002). To alleviate the risks associated

with product design, many companies now opt to first

create Virtual Prototypes (VP), leaving the

production of physical, Real Prototypes (RP) to the

later stages of development, to keep costs down (Choi

& Cheung, 2008).

When working with VPs, typically CAD

applications are used to create digital mock-ups and

3D models of designs that should be as realistic as

possible given the available technology. While these

VPs can be worked with using a standard PC monitor,

they are even more advantageous when used

alongside a virtual reality (VR) system, as this gives

users a better sense of how the product will look in

the final, physical product. Professionals can thus

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9393-0906

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8498-5278

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1728-7939

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5128-5753

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1677-6607

more easily detect errors or areas that can be

improved (de Sá & Praun von, 1998, as cited in de Sá

& Rix, 2000, p. 130; Wolfartsberger, 2019). In recent

years, the technology of various VR systems has

rapidly improved, giving consumers access to high

quality VR experiences, while decreasing the amount

of setup required, as well as the negative effects that

come from using it, at a relatively low cost (Gerschütz

et al., 2019).

However, despite the advantages of interacting

with a VP using a VR system, in general, it has not

yet been established how to optimize the design all

interactions that might occur between users and a VR

environment. This issue is made even more complex

when taking into consideration the various interaction

modalities that a system might use, the level of

familiarity that users have towards being and working

in a VR environment, and the various potential uses

for VR applications (Berni & Borgianni, 2020;

Wolfartsberger, 2019).

Nunes, M., Silva, E., Sousa, N., Sousa, E., Nunes, E. and Margolis, I.

VR Virtual Prototyping Application for Airplane Cockpit: A Human-centred Design Validation.

DOI: 10.5220/0011658800003417

In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2023) - Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages

177-184

ISBN: 978-989-758-634-7; ISSN: 2184-4321

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

177

VR for Cockpit Design

According to statistical data regarding air traffic

accidents with more than 2 deaths, involving aircrafts

transporting more than 19 passengers, between

January 1

, 1950, and June 30

, 2019, 49% of all

accidents occurred due to pilot error, which may be

categorized as Improper procedure, Navigation error,

and Spatial disorientation, among others. If the range

is restricted to the 2010s, this number increases to 57%

(Statistics, 2022). In their study regarding pilot

checklists, Degani and Wiener (1993) correlated

human factors issues with aviation security. This data

corroborates how important a good cockpit’s design

is, as it enhances the ability of pilots to make decisions

more efficiently, safely, and quickly. Zaitseva and

Dubovitskiy (2020), in turn, assessed how the rigour

of a cockpit’s structuring and signalization, as well as

the importance and rationalization of the worker’s

workspace, affects their efficiency and functional

reliability, identifying these as factors that can prevent

a plethora of human errors.

When designing an application to be used in a

professional setting, such as one to work with VP, it

is important to appropriately design and set up how

interactions will occur. It should be ensured that

whichever interactions that are designed are easy to

use and increase the application’s acceptability

(Nielsen, 1993). These interactions will be influence

various aspects of the application, such as its

intuitiveness and how satisfied users feel with it

(Nielsen and Molich, 1990).

A human-centred design approach looks to attend

to the user’s needs (Keinonen, 2008), and to create

more intuitive designs (Giacomin, 2014). According

to ISO 9241-210 (2019), a human-centred design

approach carries great benefits, both economic and

social, to all those involved, such as decreasing the

risk of product failure, improving the product’s

quality, and avoiding the chance of harm occurring

due to its use.

This study aims to evaluate how a virtual reality

application, intended to aid in virtual prototyping

airplane cockpits, performs in terms of usability, from

a human-centred design approach, among users from

the aviation industry. Fundamentally it seeks to

answer the following question: How is the usability

of a virtual reality cockpit prototyping application

perceived by users from the aviation industry?

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The experimental procedure for this study, presented

below, was split into three steps: (1) Signing the

informed consent form; (2) Using the VR application;

(3) Answering the final questionnaires on the tablet

device.

Participants

12 participants (8 male), between 18 to 56 years-old

(M = 39.25 ± SD 12.10) participated in the study.

Three participants were left-handed, and eight

participants reported having no visual issues. All

participants worked in the aviation industry, albeit in

different areas, such as piloting, project management

in maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO),

intelligence, aeronautics engineering, airship

maintenance and modification, cabin crew, among

others. In general, participants reported having a

slight amount of previous experience with VR, and

moderate experience with playing video and mobile

games. Only three participants had never previously

used VR.

VR Application

A VR headset HTC Vive Pro was used to interact with

the application. This system was composed of a Vive

Pro headset, 1 Vive Pro controller (held on the right

hand), and 2 Vive base stations 1.0 (HTC

Corporation, n.d.). A tablet device was used to fill out

the questionnaires.

The VR application was created with the aim of

aiding airline industry professionals with creating,

modifying, and validating an airplane cockpit’s

instrument panel, giving them the freedom to

manipulate instruments on a VP.

The system requirements and specifications were

developed alongside users, with task goals and

specifications being identified according their

necessities. When starting the application, in its

current stage, the virtual environment is composed of

the inside of a Falcon 50’s cockpit, in which an empty

instrument panel, with a main and a secondary

section, can be found. Above the main section, users

can find the “Gallery”. This gallery has two states,

“Closed” (Figure 1, Left) and “Opened”. When

opened, users can find inside it a list of instruments

with which they can interact. The size of these

instruments, while in the gallery, is scaled down, and

they are scaled back to their actual size when moved

outside the gallery and into the virtual panel. When

the instruments are placed on the panel, users can do

various actions with them, such as: manipulating the

location of instruments; creating groups of

instruments to manipulate their location in tandem

(groups of two or more instruments); switching the

location of two instruments with each other; aligning

the position of instruments with another’s; and

placing instruments against each other. To do these

HUCAPP 2023 - 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

178

actions, users can perform three interactions through

the Vive Pro controller: “touch”, “grab”, and “select”.

To “touch” an object or icon, users must pass one of

their intermediary fingers of the virtual hand (that is,

index, middle, or ring fingers) through the object or

icon they want to touch, without pressing any of the

controller’s buttons. To “grab” an object, in turn,

users must press the controller’s Trigger Button while

the virtual hand is in contact with an object with a

yellow outline (Figure 1, Right), which indicates

which object will be grabbed. Lastly, to “select” an

object, users must press the button at the centre of the

controller’s touchpad while the virtual hand is in

contact with an object with a yellow outline, which

indicates which object will be selected.

To place an instrument on the panel, users must

first open the “Gallery” by touching its icon.

Afterwards, they can “grab” the instrument from the

gallery, and move it to the intended location on the

panel. Once there, pushing the instrument towards the

panel will cause it to “snap” into place, and users can

let go of it (Figure 1, Right). By grabbing the

instrument again, users can move it somewhere else

as well.

While positioning an instrument on the panel, if

other objects have already been placed on it, position

aid guidelines will appear between the centre of the

grabbed object and the centre of nearest object whose

centre is in the same vertical (when objects are side

by side) or horizontal (when an object is above the

other) axis. These guidelines facilitate the process of

organizing instruments in relation to one another.

Additionally, while placing objects next to each other,

users are aided by a “snapping” function, which

brings the grabbed object near another object already

on the panel, leaving a pre-defined amount of space

between them.

When placing objects, the application also detects

and signals when objects are overlapping one another,

when part of an object is placed outside the panel’s

bounds (Figure 2, Left), or when part of an object is

overlapping the cockpits side walls.

Lastly, the “select” interaction can be used to

either group 2 or more objects together and move

them all at once, or to switch the location of an

instrument with that of another. To create a group,

users must individually select each object that will be

part of that group, by using the “select” interaction on

each one. When an object is selected, it is marked

with a green icon (Figure 2, Right). The action of

switching the location of two objects with each other

can only be done between objects with an equivalent

size. To do this action, users must first select both

objects, using the “select” interaction, and then

“touch” the “Switch” icon that will be available on

the environment. While this action has been

implemented, it was not used in this study.

Figure 1: Gallery – Closed (Left). Instrument placed on the

panel, with the yellow outline around an instrument (Right).

Figure 2: Object outsider the panel’s bounds (Left), Group

with two instruments selected (Right).

This VR application was updated after an initial

usability study (Silva et al., 2023). In comparison to

that version, changes to actions and interactions were

implemented in the current version based on the

feedback gathered through said study. The following

is a list of the main changes. (1) The functionality of

the “gallery” was changed, with users now being able

to grab instruments directly from it and moving them

over to the panel. Additionally, instruments could be

returned to it by letting them go while they weren’t

place on the panel (2) The actions required for the

“select” interaction were changed, with users now

having to first be touching the instrument before

pressing the centre touchpad button, and no longer

have to keep it pressed.

Procedure

This study was conducted in an aviation event that

occurred in October 2022, in Portugal. The study was

conducted at one of the event’s booths, where

professionals working on the aviation industry were

invited to participate. The idea of conducting this

study during this event arose in response to the

difficulties the researchers had in getting access to

users from this industry, due to the schedule

limitations of many of these professionals to

participate in user-studies.

Firstly, the intended aim of the application’s final

version, and at which stage of development it was at

the time, were explained to participants. It was also

explained that an initial study had already been

conducted with subjects not part of the aviation

VR Virtual Prototyping Application for Airplane Cockpit: A Human-centred Design Validation

179

industry, in a decontextualized environment, and the

importance of gathering data from professionals in

the industry (Silva et al., 2023).

Participants were taken to a private space where

they could freely try out the application. A brief

explanation about the controller’s buttons and their

usage was given before they entered the VR

environment. Throughout the session, a researcher

was available to answer any questions or doubts,

while another researcher noted down any

observations made by participants. After exiting the

VR environment, participants were asked to fill out a

set of questionnaires on the tablet device, which were

meant to gather demographic information, as well

their perception of the application’s user experience.

These questionnaires were: (1) A Sociodemographic

characteristics questionnaire; (2) The SUS (Brooke,

1996), used to measure the participant’s perception of

usability, and which was also used to compare with

the results from the previous study, which also used

this tool (Silva et al., 2023); and the (3) SAM

(Bradley & Lang, 1994), a non-verbal pictographic

scale used to assess the affective reaction of

participants regarding the system, separating it into

three dimensions (pleasure, arousal, and dominance).

A signed consent form was obtained from all

participants.

Data Analysis

SUS’ data analysis was carried out like in the

previous study (Silva et al., 2023), that is, according

to the calculations and parameters presented by

Brooke (1996), as well as the parameters presented by

Bangor et al. (2009). A stratified analysis of SUS,

according to the Nielsen (1993)’s scale was also

performed. Therefore, results were split into

satisfaction, ease of memorization, ease of learning,

efficiency and minimization of errors, based on

Boucinha and Tarouco (2013).

The median was used as a measure for the analysis

of SAM’s results. While the mean is more frequently

used (Aguirre, 2016), since SAM uses a bipolar scale,

Belfiore (2015) suggests that the median should be

used instead. The author claims that, since the

numbers are connected to a classification scale, using

the mean might result in an unintended bias, as

participants analyse the scale’s label instead of its

number. The SAM’s median was worked with and

justified in the work of Ribeiro (2020).

The results from observing participants

throughout the sessions, which were noted down by a

researcher, were also analysed.

Data Comparison

This research was carried out as a complement to a

previously conducted study in which we aimed to

assess the user experience and, among other factors,

the usability of the application with an emphasis on

the “touch”, “grab”, and “select” interactions (Silva

et al., 2023). The SUS was implemental in the

experimental protocol of both studies, and the results

obtained were compared to see if any changes to the

perception of usability occurred.

Furthermore, special attention was given to

participant’s comments and observations related to

the application’s system which were modified from

the previous study, namely: the modification to the

instrument’s gallery; the changes to the “select”

interaction; and how to add instruments to a group.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SUS

The SUS had a final score of 81.3, which corresponds

to a classification of “acceptable”, according to

Brooke (1996) and Bangor et al. (2009). In Bangor et

al. (2009)’s adjective perspective, SUS, in general, is

considered as being “Good”.

Figure 3 shows each participant’s SUS results,

with the orange bars indicating female participants,

and blue bars indicating male participants. Bangor et

al. (2009)’s acceptability (green line) and non-

acceptability (red line) limits, as well as the overall

mean (purple line) are also shown. It can be noted

that, of the 5 lowest scores, 4 came from the female

participants, while the other came from a male

participant who worked in airplane manufacturing. It

can also be noted that the 3 participants who reported

having myopia (identified by a bold outline in Figure

3) were part of the group of lowest scorers (1 female

with a score of 72.5, 1 male and 1 female with a score

of 70). Left-handed participants gave the two lowest

scores (1 male and one female with a score of 70), as

well as the highest score (1 male, with a score of 100),

all aged between 41 and 49 years old.

Participants that reported having plenty or

moderate contact with VR, video games, and mobile

games, evaluated the application with a lower mean

score of 76. As for participants that reported having

had little to no prior contact with VR, videogames, or

mobile games, rated the application in a positive way,

with a mean score of 87.

Regarding the stratified analysis according to

Nielsen (1993)’s scale, it can be noted that all

dimensions are above the acceptable level (Figure 4).

HUCAPP 2023 - 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

180

Comparing them amongst each other, “satisfaction”

and “ease of learning” where the lowest ones, in

order. Thus, it can be concluded that the usability

parameter, measured using the SUS, was positive.

SAM

Analysing the results from SAM, a trend of neutral-

positive affective reaction regarding the application

can be noted. In the dimension of “pleasure” (Figure

5, A), the median is at a value right before the

extremely positive, which corresponds to a

pleasurable reaction. In the dimension of “arousal”,

the created affection was neutral (Figure 5, B). As for

the dimension of “dominance”, an affective reaction

of positive control was found (Figure 5, C), which

demonstrates a feeling of control towards the

application.

Regarding profile analysis, no differences were

noted between left-handed and right-handed

participants. On the other hand, differences were

noted between the affective reaction of males vs.

females, and between those with previous experience

with VR, video games, and mobile games, versus

those without (Figure 6). Comparing the results

obtained from both sexes, while positive pleasure

results were obtained from both, women seem to have

had a slightly lower activation. Regarding arousal, the

difference in results from both sexes is more

significant, as men had a moderate-positive affective

reaction, while women had a neutral-moderate

negative reaction. As for dominance, men had a

bigger perception of a feeling of control.

Looking at data from the perspective of previous

experience with VR, videogames, and mobile games,

a more positive trend could be noted on those without

prior experience. Those without prior experience had

a maximum positive affective reaction in the

dimension of dominance, while those with prior

experience scored two points lower. Regarding the

dimension of arousal, a two-point difference was also

found, with those with prior experience reporting a

neutral affective reaction, while those without

reported a moderate-positive affective reaction.

Lastly, in the dimension of “pleasure”, both groups

had the same result.

Observation

During the participant’s interactions with the VR

application, the following positive aspects were

noted: (1) The instructions provided to participants

were easily understood; (2) Opening the gallery

caused a pleasant surprise reaction, since instruments

would poop into view; (3) Participants immediately

wanted to grab the instruments found in the gallery;

(4) The yellow outline around objects was useful to

help understand their 3D dimensions; (5) All

participants quickly put the “grab” interaction to use,

and easily understood how it worked; (6) Moving an

instrument after grabbing it was reported as being

fluid and quick; (7) Participants reported that placing

the instruments on the panel was intuitive, and they

did this action without any issues; (8) Participants

quickly perceived when objects overlaid each other

on the panel, due to the change of the object’s colour;

(9) Returning instruments to the gallery was

conducted intuitively; (10) Releasing the grab on an

instrument, while it was neither in the gallery nor on

the panel, caused some surprise, as it would

automatically return to the gallery.

Likewise, the following negative aspects were

also noted: (1) Participants reported that the gallery

could be more visible; (2) Participants had trouble

understanding that the yellow outline indicated that

an object could be interacted with; (3) Participants

reported that the yellow outline was visually

confusing; (4) Placing an instrument on the panel’s

borders raised questions that had to be addressed

through the session; (5) Some participants reported

that they felt that the indication that an object was

being “grabbed” was strange.

Figure 3: SUS Score.

Figure 4: SUS Score – Stratification.

VR Virtual Prototyping Application for Airplane Cockpit: A Human-centred Design Validation

181

Figure 5: SAM - Pleasure (A), Arousal (B), Dominance (C).

Figure 6: SAM – By profile (male, female, with and without

previous experience with VR).

Regarding more general comments towards the

application, an aircraft maintenance and

modifications engineer reported been pleased with it.

Two participants (the MROs), in turn, praised the

application, one of them mentioning that he could

foresee a lot of potential for it, both for design and

assembly of cockpits, from a maintenance and

engineering standpoint, as well as for the validation

of the cockpit by pilots. One pilot stated that “I hope

you’ll keep developing this app so that pilots can have

more comfort.” Another pilot commented that,

besides the gains in comfort, using the application

could help reduce the number of errors that occur and,

potentially, prevent air traffic accidents.

Overall, it could be noted that the application was

easy to interact with, from a functionality, usability,

and intuitiveness standpoint. However, some aspects

regarding visibility and interaction still need to be

improved.

Comparison with the Previous Study

In the previously conducted study (Silva et al., 2023),

although the VR environment was uncharacterized,

and sessions were conducted with a pre-defined

sequence of tasks to be carried out, issues were found.

Amongst these, we point out: (1) the way in which the

“select” interaction was established; and (2) the

action of loading instruments onto the slots followed

by then dragging them onto the panel. These aspects

were changed and tested in the current study.

Comparing the two studies, the SUS scores from the

previous study had a mean of 68.5, while, in the

current study, they have a mean of 81.3. According to

Bangor et al. (2009), this means they moved from the

marginally acceptable area, with the adjective of

“ok”, to the acceptability area, with the adjective of

“good.”

Another change that was noted was in the data

stratification, where all dimensions improved, with

“satisfaction” and “ease of learning” going from

marginal to acceptable.

In the face of these changes, it is clear that the

system became more intuitive, functional, and fluid,

compared to the version used on the previous study.

Additionally, the new gallery was well accepted by

participants of this study, although it can still be

improved further.

Discussion

From the viewpoint of the VR application’s usability,

and the experience it provided users with, the

application was well accepted and regarded as having

a good usability. This includes the easiness of using

it, its efficiency, satisfaction, intuitiveness, agility,

and dominance. These aspects converge to Nielsen

(1993)’s and Nielsen and Molich (1990)’s view of

good usability, as well as to ISO 9241-210 (2019)’s

metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction.

Furthermore, taking these norms into account, this

study looked to take a human-centred approach when

designing the application, keeping the intended users

of its final version in mind.

Some basic aspects of the application, which can

be improved further, were also noted, such as the

observations raised regarding the gallery, the object’s

outline, and a neutral arousal response. Nonetheless,

when comparing the results from this research with

those obtained in the previously conducted study, an

improvement of its usability can be noted. As for the

application itself and the ideia behind its

development, the feedback received was positive, as

users noted the potential it has.

This study was faced with some limitations.

Firstly, the researchers had trouble contacting users

that are part of the application’s intended user group,

and, as the study was carried out during an aviation

event, it was not the ideal context for a study to be

conducted in. Some consideration must thus be made

regarding the obtained results. Participants were in a

positive context and were enthusiastic when they

started their session. Complementary, the SUS and

SAM are self-reporting tools that assess a user’s

experience. Therefore, it’s possible that the

HUCAPP 2023 - 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

182

environment in which the study was conducted might

have had a positive influence in the user’s satisfaction

and perception. This aspect is reinforced by Seo et al.

(2014) who looked at cognitive-emotional behaviour,

and reported that a user’s usability perception might

be positively correlated with their emotional

engagement. To try and address these issues, while

recruiting participants, fluence in the user’s

satisfaction and perception. This aspect is reinforced

by Seo et al. (2014)’s study, where the author the

importance of criticising the application freely and

voicing their opinions, given that the application was

still in development.

Secondly, participants had the freedom to do as

they pleased while in the virtual environment, as there

were no pre-established tasks they had to perform. The

result was that not all participants made use of the

grouping action (using the “select” interaction). On

one hand, this format was useful to see how intuitive

the application was and how excited participants were.

On the other hand, some areas we wished to assess

received less attention than others, which reinforces

the need for future research, with a more matured

version of the application, following a more structured

protocol. Nonetheless, given that this study’s protocol

was simple and had few functions for users to use, the

positive “Freedom” aspect was highlighted.

In continuation of the previous point, the

application was still limited in the number of

instruments available and actions that could be

performed. This might influence the application’s

usability and the environment’s aesthetic.

In future work, we aim to implement the

suggestions for improvements that were gathered in

this study. We also intend to test and test the more

mature version of the application again, in a

controlled environment and with a well-established

experimental protocol, with participants that are part

of the application’s intended user group. Another

factor that may be important to analyse in future

research is the connection between human-centred

design and business strategy (Giacomin, 2014). As

efficiency and safety can be related with cockpit

design, it may be possible to extrapolate a relation

between the improvements granted by a VR

prototyping tool and effective economic return.

4 CONCLUSIONS

By making efforts to acquire feedback regarding the

application’s development from professionals in the

aviation industry, we aimed to ultimately help

promote the application’s adoption upon release, as

the final version will be geared towards the

expectations and needs of these users, specifically

those involved with the process of cockpit

development and maintenance. While some design

changes had previously been implemented in the

application, with the intent of improving its usability

and the experience it provides users, these came from

data gathered next to users who were not

professionals in the aviation industry (Silva et al.,

2023). While these contributions are still valuable at

earlier stages of development, it is paramount to

gather the opinions of the intended userbase as early

as possible, so they can better shape the application’s

development. This includes aeronautical designers,

developers, engineers, and pilots, for example.

However, as these professionals are not always

available to test out earlier developmental builds,

opportunities where user data can be gathered quickly

and efficiently, such as industry events, must be taken

advantage of. Importantly, such events also serve to

show not only the usefulness of a virtual prototyping

application, but also the usefulness of having such an

application working in virtual reality, thanks to the

hardware that is currently available, and the

contributions users can have in shaping the

development of applications they might use in the

future.

Taking the results from this study into account,

other functionalities and interactions of the

application can still be developed further, and more

rigorous testing with these professionals must be

conducted. However, these future tests must be

conducted in a structured environment and with

controlled tasks, to fully assess the participants’

opinions and potential issues of the application during

use, not only regarding the interactions and actions

that are currently available on it, but also regarding

those actions and interactions which are planned to be

implemented by the final version.

Throughout each session, it could be noted that

the professionals from the aviation industry were

pleased with the direction towards which the virtual

reality cockpit prototyping application was being

developed. As four participants noted, the aim is for

this application, when finalized, to be a tool that can

help promote the safety and well-being of all those

inside an aircraft, starting with pilots themselves, by

improving the cockpits with which they work with.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research has been carried out under project

“I2AM - Intelligent Immersive Aircraft Modification”,

VR Virtual Prototyping Application for Airplane Cockpit: A Human-centred Design Validation

183

funded by the FEDER component of the European

Structural and Investment Funds through the

Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization

Programme (COMPETE 2020) [Funding Reference:

OCI-01-0247-FEDER-070189].

REFERENCES

Aguirre, A. L. R. (2016). Viés de atenção para pistas

relacionadas com alimentos saudáveis e não saudáveis

entre crianças com diferentes pesos ao nascer. Tese

(Doutorado em Psicologia). Porto Alegre, Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, pp. 155.

Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining

What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an

Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies,

4(3), pp. 114-123

Belfiore, P. (2015). Estatística aplicada a administração,

contabilidade e economia com Excel e SPSS. Rio de

Janeiro: Elsevier.

Berni, A., & Borgianni, Y. (2020). Applications of Virtual

Reality in Engineering and Product Design: Why,

What, How, When and Where. Electronics, 9(7), 1064.

Boucinha, R. M., & Tarouco, L. M. R. (2013). Avaliação

de Ambiente Virtual de Aprendizagem com o uso do

SUS - System Usability Scale. RENOTE, 11(3), 1-10.

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring Emotion:

The Self-Assessment Manikin And The Semantic

Differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and

Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “Quick and Dirty” Usability

Scale. In Usability Evaluation In Industry (Vol. 189,

pp. 207–212). CRC Press.

Choi, S. H., & Cheung, H. H. (2008). A versatile virtual

prototyping system for rapid product development.

Computers in Industry, 59(5), 477–488.

de Sá, A. G., & Rix, J. (2000). Virtual Prototyping: The

Integration of Design and Virtual Reality. In CAD Tools

and Algorithms for Product Design, 128–150).

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1993). Cockpit Checklists:

Concepts, Design, and Use. Human Factors, 35(2),

345–359.

Gerschütz, B., Fechter, M., Schleich, B., & Wartzack, S.

(2019). A review of requirements and approaches for

realistic visual perception in virtual reality.

Proceedings of the International Conference on

Engineering Design, ICED, 2019-Augus(1), 1893–

1902.

Giacomin, J. (2014). What Is Human Centred Design? The

Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623

HTC Corporation. (n.d.). VIVE Pro Full Kit. Retrieved

September 13, 2022, from https://www.vive.com/us/

product/vive-pro-full-kit/

ISO 9241-210 (2019) Ergonomics of human-system

interaction.

Joyce, R., & Robinson, S. K. (2019). Evaluation of a Virtual

Reality Environment for Cockpit Design. Proceedings

of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

Meeting, 63(1), 2328–2332.

Keinonen, T. (2008). User-centered design and

fundamental need. In: Nordic Conference on Human-

Computer Interaction: building-bridges, 5, Lund: ACM

New York, 211-219.

Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. Academic Press,

Inc., Harcourt Brace & Company, San Diego, USA.

Nielsen, J. & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of

user interfaces. In: SIGCHI conference on human

factors in computing systems. proceedings. ACM.

Ottosson, S. (2002). Virtual reality in the product

development process. Journal of Engineering Design,

13(2), 159–172.

Ribeiro, I. M. (2020). Mapeamento da hedonomia e das

experiências emocionais: A percepção do aluno no

ensino superior sob a perspectiva do design emocional.

Tese (Doutorado em Design) Recife, Universidade

Federal de Pernambuco pp. 472.

Seo, K.-K., Lee, S., Chung, B. D., & Park, C. (2014). Users'

emotional valence, arousal, and engagement based on

perceived usability and aesthetics for web sites.

International Journal oh Human-Computer Interaction,

31(1), 72-87.

Silva, E., Margolis, I., Nunes, M., Sousa, N., Nunes, E., &

Sousa, E. (2023). Analysis of the user experience (UX)

of design interactions for a job-related VR application.

HUCAPP - 18th International Joint Conference on

Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics

Theory and Applications.

Statistics, Causes of Fatal Accidents by Decade, [online].

(2022). Available from http://planecrashinfo.com/.

Wolfartsberger, J. (2019). Analyzing the potential of

Virtual Reality for engineering design review.

Automation in Construction, 104, 27–37.

Zaitseva, A. A. & Dubovitskiy, M. A. (2020). Ergonomic

of Instrument Panel and Sensors in the Passenger

Aircraft Cockpit and its Impact on the Human Factor

Manifestation and Flight Safety, 2020 International

Youth Conference on Radio Electronics, Electrical and

Power Engineering (REEPE), 1-4.

HUCAPP 2023 - 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

184