|
|
Tracy Crook wrote:
Al is of course correct about the mathematical chances of failure on the SYSTEM but I think Ed was referring to the increased chances of the human involved to deal with the increased complexity. I have seen more instances of this than I have actual hardware failures. Training on the system is of vital importance when the system is more complex. Tracy Crook
I know a lot of designers don't do it, but I like the mindset that the operator is a component of the system. A very vital, inseperable, and (sometimes*) unmodifiable component. One that must be designed around, but can never be designed away. How WidgetA interfaces to WidgetB is just as important as how each interfaces to the nut holding the stick. People will spend hours to make sure that all the widgets aren't overstressed, and not blink an eye at giving the system processor one more task. I invite everyone to take any single modification they've made and analyze it from the viewpoint of how much of the pilot's time will it require under situation A, B, C, and "Oh, $H17"
*I know...I could stand to lose a few pounds and get a little smarter, but still...
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
|
|