Machine man interfaces

Citation

Loughlin, C. (2010), "Machine man interfaces", Industrial Robot, Vol. 37 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ir.2010.04937baa.001

Machine man interfaces

Article Type: Editorial From: Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Volume 37, Issue 2

Our theme for this issue is man machine interfaces and this is a subject area that is absolutely key for the application of robots. It is the usability of devices and systems that really determines how successful or unsuccessful they are likely to be.

I consider the computer mouse to be one of the most significant developments in man computer interfaces. First appearing on the high street about 25 years ago, it is now very hard to imagine home or work life without them. Before the mouse scurried on to the scene everything was controlled by combinations of key strokes such as Ctrl Shift C. This meant that you needed to know quite a large number of key stroke combinations to use a computer (e.g. for word processing) and although some operations are still quicker to perform in this way for a practiced hand, the flexibility of control that the mouse provides is unsurpassed and theoretically infinite. Standardisation of “looks and feels” also mean that it is quite possible to work with a new suite of software without ever bothering to read the manual.

With a piece of software such as a word processor the combination of keyboard and mouse (and to an increasing extent, touch) allows the person to enter the world of the computer. The “work” is almost exclusively accomplished within the machine and the only physical output is a sheet of paper sprayed with ink.

When we consider robots and their control the situation is completely reversed because it is the machine that needs to enter our 3D physical world, rather than us entering the world of the robot. In this regard, robot simulation is inherently false because it maintains the man computer flow of the interface, allowing the person to enter the digital world of the machine.

If one person tells another person how to do a job then a man-man interface is created. Both parties speak the same “language” and for many tasks it takes just a few minutes to train someone to do a specific task.

It is the great flexibility and ease of communication that still makes the employment of people the biggest “threat” to the further application of robots. If the training effort required to satisfactorily perform a task is less for a person than for a robot then it is likely that a person will get the job. If the task requires non-human levels of precision, speed or payload, then it is likely that the robot will get the job.

The end result of all this is that people often end up doing the “dirty, dull and dangerous” tasks that are often cited as being ripe for robotisation. If this ironic situation is to be reversed then robots need to be better equipped to enter our 3D world. What we really need therefore is not a man machine interface but a machine man interface. Robots need to understand what we want them to do, and to be able to implement those wishes if we are to expand the application of robots.

At the moment robots are lacking in intelligence and so we expend great efforts telling them what to do so they can perform complex task – they get the best jobs while we are left with the drudgery.

Clive Loughlin