From Human Factor to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-Computer Interaction Studies in System Design
by Bannon, Liam J.

In this article Bannon critisises the human factors (HF) research for having an implicit view of the users as, "at worst, idiots who must be shielded from the machine, or as, at best, simply sets of elementary processes or 'factors' that can be studied in isolation in the laboratory". He wants to bring forward issues such as underlying values and motivation by understanding people as actors.
Bannon aims for a new view of the discipline where the user's viewpoint is added to the system perspective. He begins this work by reformulating some key terms. The term human factors connotes a "passive, fragmented, depersonalized, unmotivated individual", viewed as a component in a system, while a human actor can be active and in control. This view brings such questions as individual motivation and context into focus. The problem with the term user, and especially naive user is that it connotes a sense of being unskilled and naive, like an aeroplane passanger compared to a pilot, but while the person may be naive to the technology, it is the researcher who is naive to the work that the technology is supposed to support. Therefore Bannon prefers casual or discretionary users. He also points out that users sometimes has to modify the system before it can be used effectively and are therefore also partly designers.
The view of users as naive or even stupid has generated designs that pruduce stupid behaviour and requires an incredible amount of intelligence to design and maintain. The constraints in flexibility leads to systems that are easy to learn but does not offer enough functionality in the long run. Instructions and help functions are also poorly designed since they do not allow for some structure to attach new information to so that the understanding can be expanded.
To understand how this situation ha come about Bannon takes a look a the evolution of the field of HF and HCI. It was clear from the beginning of the century that there was a need for human intervention in machine controlled processes. The question of how to divide work between human and machine became an important task. Since there was a division there also had to be an interaction, and to interact you need an interface. The attempts to fit the machine to the physical and mental characteristics of humans became a new field of study that in North America became known as human factors engineering and in Europe was called ergonomics.
In those days machines were used in the same configuration for long time periods so ease of learning was not a high priority. When the computers came a distinction was made between operators and programmers but the focus remained on the functionality rather than ease of use. As computers entered into new areas of work, and the personal computer made its breakthrough the number of discretionary user grew. They demanded systems that was easier to learn and use. Partly as a response to this, a new field of research called human-computer interaction emerged in the early eighties. In the search for a theoretical base for the new field, HCI got connected to cognitive science. The field expanded rapidly as a result of terms like ease-of-use and user-friendliness became of commercial importance.

Despite some andvaces in the area some serious criticism has been directed towards the field for its lack of relevance to the practitioners and the limitations of cognitive theory when applied to everyday design situations. A partial remedy for this is to go from controlled laboratory experiments to doing workplace studies. This is currently [1991] done in the work on usability. More attention should also be spent on the process instead of only concentrating on the product. Involvement of the users in all stages of an iterative design process should be practiced, like within the Scandinavian tradition.

Bannon concretisises his ideas on what direction this field of research should take in a number of statements:

• From product to process in the field of design.
  Work with the users in all stages of design.
• From individuals to groups.
  Coordination and cooperation in work situations is neglected.
• From the laboratory to the workplace.
  Avoid "the race between the tortoise of cumulative science and the hare of intuitive design".
• From novices to experts.
  Attention should be paid to how users develop their skills.
• From analysis to design.
  We want to know how to build good systems, not if the system we already built is a good one.
• From user-centered to user-involved design.
  The users should be involved both for democratic and qualitative reasons.
• From user requirements specifications to iterative prototyping.
  Users need to have experience from the future use situation.

Bannon ends the article by predicting that people from a wider range of disciplines such as architects, sociologists and athropologists will be involved in the design process in the future.