CS820

Final Project

Usability and Interaction Project

By

Tai Cleveland

CS820

Doctor Cynthia Calongne

Link to Web site UAV Project

http://www.geocities.com/taicleveland/CS820.htm


























1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope
This paper will include the important phase of the overall product design by usability testing wherein subjects or specifically the users were asked to take survey questions in a set time. The focus will be on how well the users perform and interact between human and a UAV Technology. In this case, the participants will have to be determined and set in order to establish a conclusive result. In the course of the testing, the users were observed to be interacting with an application. The test set-up, which was in survey form, was designed to be as faithful as possible to all conditions and user types targeted by the product. The tests were either done automatically or manually wherein the sessions were timed and results were subsequently studied in order to get the trends and extract the performance data of UAV MQ-1.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this activity is to determine how effectively a given user interface performs when a typical user having no prior expectations and preconceptions interacts with it. Another facet of this undertaking is to establish whether direct one-on-one usability testing is more capable in reaching the goal than focus groups or other available market research and product evaluation that are commonly used. The elements that consistently fail were identified, analyzed and redesigned to improve user interface effectiveness.
2 USER PROFILES
The subject pool was obtained from acquisition and scheduling of representative sample of users that were directed to have an interaction with the system. The user profiles were evaluated based on the results of the survey tests. The participants of the survey were asked to fill up the checklist shown in Appendix B. In this way, usability and interaction will best be tested and at the same time it is ensured to exhibit the demographic characteristics typical of the customer base. Potential subjects would then have to be those who have been exposed to the use of computers or maybe those who are actually using the computers in their day-to-day lives. In addition, the subjects or the users will have to be acquired from school groups, community organizations or from the mailing lists as a proof that they can actually carry on with the usability testing requirements. As for the number of users, or the sample size, it depended on the result that gave a statistical validity that is not misleading so as not to jeopardize the most important attribute of subject selection. They should really represent the users of the targeted application.
3 USER INTERFACE
In this project, the main characteristic of user interface is the usability wherein the subject pools were observed on how to interact with the system. But still, the functionality of the product or the system has to be properly considered. The idea is for the system to work, the ultimate usability testing, is that the users have to gain control of the system and then eventually be able to assess the state of the system.
3.1 User Interface Metaphor
Task descriptions and the survey questions that were either printed in paper or accessed in the computer possibly in the network or downloaded from the Internet were the forms that were used for the users to have interaction and have detection and evaluation of usability.
3.2 User Interface Prototypes
Low fidelity prototype that was suitable for testing was developed using Second Life and was arranged with the instructor. The use of the test questionnaire as design and developing that contains assessment of Past Experience, Overall User Reactions, Learning, Screen, Terminology and System Information, and System Capabilities for further studies. In addition, was used to estimate the user profile of the system. The target users bearing in mind efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction can use provision of how well a product for its expected purpose. Although the functionalities and features were not included in the user interface but are also important elements in the usability of the product.
4 USE CASE SCENARIOS
Use case scenarios aid in the fulfillment of the requirements in the design of user interface in the field of usability testing. In essence, the scenario is the actual interaction of the subject with the system. In this case, the scenario that was used helped in directing the focus of the design towards the distinct requirements of the users. Scenarios may be related to use cases, which describe interactions at a technical level. Unlike use cases, however, scenarios can be understood by people who do not have any technical background. For the actual tests conducted, the user were subjected to survey questions and were timed and the interactions were observed.

5 USABILITY SPECIFICATION
Usability takes into account the human factors of the users such as their psychology and physiology and then adapts it to the design of the particular user interface. This in turn would affect a process that is composed of a working system that is effective, efficient and satisfying. The design of a user interface involves the amount of effort the user must use up to offer input for the system and to deduce the output of the system, and how much effort it takes to learn how to do this. In this regard, product quality problems can be identified such as if in the computer, detection of programming bugs and design flaws while if in the manual mode errors can be encountered such as human related errors. The costs of this usability will then become a problem especially in the manner of how the data will be taken.
6 TEST CASES AND TEST PROCEDURES
Usability testing of a prototype relies on the same effective subject acquisition methods for other usability tests. Recognizing that the goal of usability tests is to study the behavior of the user interface and not to debug the prototype, test cases are carefully designed to exercise those parts of the application that are thoroughly tested and known to be bug-free. The prototype is also loaded with professionally recorded prompts for accurate assessment of scripting. Subjects are then acquired, brought to the lab, and asked to call the prototype. When the time arrives for running the usability tests, subjects arrive at a scheduled time. They are given specific instructions and asked to sign a waiver. The subjects were asked to proceed to the testing rooms were in they have to follow the established procedures. Subject pools were set to take the survey questions first from the computer and then after that they were asked to take the same tests only in manual format. The interactions on the user interfaces were then forwarded for evaluation. They are then exposed to the tasks that they must accomplish and placed in a private room where in no one interferes with the subject’s normal and spontaneous behavior. The test room is normally arranged as an office. Subjects are usually paid. Tests are performed one subject at a time. Subsequent group discussions or debriefings may occur in some testing cases.
7 TEST RESULTS
A student gathers appropriate data, work with clients to iterate test cases, and ensure that the psychology and context of usability tests are valid. The result is superior test results with minimum subject pools. Typical testing sequences use some subjects in defined sessions, followed by extensive written questionnaires and live interviews. More complex applications or extensive research efforts use twice or occasionally three times as many subjects, longer test sessions, and more sophisticated group-testing techniques. The subjects coming from school groups, community organizations and participants from the mailing list were subjected in the usability testing. From them, the people belonging from the mailing list were the one’s more responsive to the survey questions in the computer while the users from the school groups responded very well in manual mode. This only means that those with the mailing list have the better skills and experience with the user interface design. As for the community groups the result was diverse as in almost half were leaning toward the automatic testing and the rest towards the manual mode of survey questions.
8 CONCLUSION
Usability and interaction was observed in the usability testing that used the user interface design that was available in the form of task description and survey question. The representative samples of users were taken by using user profile checklist and showed that they were fit and conclusive for the test.
9 AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH
The usability and interaction project used to perform usability testing on a new product that has not been previously evaluated. These tests exhibit a considerable degree of risk, and undertake them with caution. The reason is that usability tests tend to identify usability problems. Unless the organization is prepared to address problems identified by such testing, the effort is wasteful of resource—why run tests if the results will not lead to action? The subject used for the users was fit for the project as seen in the results. It is well known that the costs associated with both problems increases exponentially when the problems are exposed late in the product lifecycle. This means that accurate knowledge of the usability of a given user interface reduces risk in later stages of development. Conversely, discovery of usability problems in late stages of product development led to costly rewrites or, worse, premature release of faulty products. Either result negatively impacts the cost-reduction or customer-satisfaction goals.



Testing Procedure and Results – UAV Project
Test Determent.

The purpose of this test is capturing a real time of the UAV systems flying at low level start at 1000ft. to above 50,000Ft. at different speed and altitude and focal length ,rate of data /signal transmission.

This testing conduct at low level fly altitude 1000ft. at 100kt air speed.

Between 1000ft. to 3000ft using 180mm Focal length.

Beyond 3000ft and above 50,000ft. using various length up to 36in focal length.


UAV Usability Specification – Scenario One
Mission Complete.

3 Test Procedure 1:
4 Task 1 – Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length and engaging system.

Task 2 – Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
The Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3 – Activate Video/Cameras transmission
The Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task 4 – Activate current Data review
Sensor Operator reviews current Status/ Fly altitude/ systems/Engine and accepts the Target scan location.


Task 5 – Continuing process
The Sensor Operator repeat the same procedure at different altitude speed and location
And engaging different instruments system interface as air speed, win velocities and weather condition.





5
6 Test Results Scenario 1:

Capturing Real-Time Images at Low Altitude

Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/
Air Speed

Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
Altitude at 3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
10sec
15sec
10sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per/
sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
45sec
50sec
3
Activate Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
30sec
40sec
55sec
4
Select Trojant Spirit II data link screen replicate and review
20Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
40sec
45sec
20sec
30sec
30sec
5
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission
Complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
60sec
40sec
45sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
9
10
8
9
10
9
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
10
8
7
9
8
10
Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
8
9
10
8
9
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
7
9
10
8
8
9



7 Test Analysis 1:
8
Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
120sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
60sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
60sec
4
Select Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Mission complete
30sec
5
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission complete
60sec




Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
9

Amount of information displayed
Hard – Easy
10
9 UAV Usability Specification – Scenario Two – Sensor Operator changing Target location at different altitude and speed.

Test Procedure 2:

Task 1. Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed.
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length/ frame and engaging system.

Task 2. Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3. Activate Video/Cameras transmission.
Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task4. Changing at High Altitude and Speed Different Location at max air speed 350kt.
Sensor Operator increasing air speed/changing altitude at 50,000ft , then select 914mm or 36in
Focal length and update current data location


Task 5. Activate current Data review.
Sensor Operator reviews current data Status/ Fly altitude/ systems/Engine and accepts the Target scan location.


Task 6 – Continuing process
The Sensor Operator repeat the same procedure at different altitude speed and location
And engaging different instruments system interface as air speed, win velocities and weather condition.
















10
11
12 Test Results Scenario 2:

Capturing Real-Time Images at different altitude/location

Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/AirSpeed
Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
Altitude at 3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
15sec
20sec
15sec
2
Activate Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per
/sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
45sec
50sec
3
Engaging Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
10sec
30sec
45sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude and Air Speed Location
Increasing 350kt./914mm/10Mbit/30GHz
Time to Perform
40sec
45sec
15sec
20sec
35
5
Select Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
35Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
20sec
30sec
30sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission
Complete
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
30sec
30sec
30sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
10
10
10
10
10

Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
10
10
10
10
10
10
13
14
15
16 Test Analysis 2:
17
Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
15sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
40sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
30sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude 50,000ft /air speed at 350kt.
Time to perform
40sec
5
Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Successful task completion
20sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Successful task completion
65sec
Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
10

Amount of information displayed
Difficult – Easy
10

Change Process
Difficult – Easy
9
18
19
20 UAV Usability Specification – Scenario 3 – Abort the Mission due to Extremely Bad Weather.

Test Procedure:

Task 1. Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed.
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length/ frame and engaging system.

Task 2. Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3. Activate Video/Cameras transmission.
Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task4. Changing at High Altitude and Speed Different Location at max air speed 350kt.
Sensor Operator increasing air speed/changing altitude at 50,000ft , then select 914mm or 36in
Focal length and update current data location


Task6. Abort the Mission.
Sensor Operator reviews current Weather in BAD condition and Request to Abort the Mission


21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28





29 Test Results Scenario 3:

Abort the Mission due Bad Weather condition.



Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/AirSpeed
Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
20sec
15sec
13sec
2
Activate Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per
/sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
30sec
35sec
3
Engaging Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
20ec
15sec
20sec
4
Changing at High Altitude and Air Speed Location
Increasing 350kt./914mm/10Mbit/30GHz
Time to Perform
35sec
120sec
60sec
15sec
10sec
5
Select_Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
35Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
30sec
20sec
25sec
6
Abort the MISSION
Permission Granted
Time to Perform
120sec
300sec
60sec
60sec
60sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
10
9
9
8
10
9
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
9
8
10
9
10
8
Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
9
9
8
10
9
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
9
10
9
8
10
9






30





31 Test Analysis 3:

Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
10sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
35sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
25sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude 50,000ft /air speed at 350kt.
Time to perform
45sec
5
Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Successful task completion
15sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Successful task completion
40sec
Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
10

Amount of information displayed
Difficult – Easy
10

Change Process
Difficult – Easy
9






Table Values

Task Description or Survey Question = test tasks, quality summary, or survey question
Value Measured = Time to perform a task, number of keyclicks, successful task completion, help requests, survey responses
Current Level = what it takes to perform the task today in a manual or automated fashion.
Minimum Acceptable = the lowest amount of quality and where a project ends when out of time or money
Planned Target = the initial project quality goal
Best Possible = an ideal project quality goal, given the best in technology, team skills, clear requirements, time and money
Observed Results = total of the test results divided by the population equals the average for any single wave of testing
Eval = Evaluation of survey results is on a scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being the lowest, worst, least desirable and 9 being the best result.


















Testing Procedure and Results – UAV Project
Test Determent.

The purpose of this test is capturing a real time of the UAV systems flying at low level start at 1000ft. to above 50,000Ft. at different speed and altitude and focal length ,rate of data /signal transmission.

This testing conduct at low level fly altitude 1000ft. at 100kt air speed.

Between 1000ft. to 3000ft using 180mm Focal length.

Beyond 3000ft and above 50,000ft. using various length up to 36in focal length.


UAV Usability Specification – Scenario One
Mission Complete.

Test Procedure 1:
Task 1 – Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length and engaging system.

Task 2 – Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
The Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3 – Activate Video/Cameras transmission
The Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task 4 – Activate current Data review
Sensor Operator reviews current Status/ Fly altitude/ systems/Engine and accepts the Target scan location.


Task 5 – Continuing process
The Sensor Operator repeat the same procedure at different altitude speed and location
And engaging different instruments system interface as air speed, win velocities and weather condition.






Test Results Scenario 1:

Capturing Real-Time Images at Low Altitude

Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/
Air Speed

Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
Altitude at 3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
10sec
15sec
10sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per/
sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
45sec
50sec
3
Activate Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
30sec
40sec
55sec
4
Select Trojant Spirit II data link screen replicate and review
20Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
40sec
45sec
20sec
30sec
30sec
5
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission
Complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
60sec
40sec
45sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
9
10
8
9
10
9
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
10
8
7
9
8
10
Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
8
9
10
8
9
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
7
9
10
8
8
9



Test Analysis 1:

Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
120sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
60sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
60sec
4
Select Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Mission complete
30sec
5
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission complete
60sec




Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
9

Amount of information displayed
Hard – Easy
10
UAV Usability Specification – Scenario Two – Sensor Operator changing Target location at different altitude and speed.

Test Procedure 2:

Task 1. Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed.
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length/ frame and engaging system.

Task 2. Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3. Activate Video/Cameras transmission.
Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task4. Changing at High Altitude and Speed Different Location at max air speed 350kt.
Sensor Operator increasing air speed/changing altitude at 50,000ft , then select 914mm or 36in
Focal length and update current data location


Task 5. Activate current Data review.
Sensor Operator reviews current data Status/ Fly altitude/ systems/Engine and accepts the Target scan location.


Task 6 – Continuing process
The Sensor Operator repeat the same procedure at different altitude speed and location
And engaging different instruments system interface as air speed, win velocities and weather condition.


















Test Results Scenario 2:

Capturing Real-Time Images at different altitude/location

Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/AirSpeed
Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
Altitude at 3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
15sec
20sec
15sec
2
Activate Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per
/sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
45sec
50sec
3
Engaging Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
10sec
30sec
45sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude and Air Speed Location
Increasing 350kt./914mm/10Mbit/30GHz
Time to Perform
40sec
45sec
15sec
20sec
35
5
Select Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
35Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
20sec
30sec
30sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Mission
Complete
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
30sec
30sec
30sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
10
10
10
10
10

Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
10
10
10
10
10
10



Test Analysis 2:

Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
15sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
40sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
30sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude 50,000ft /air speed at 350kt.
Time to perform
40sec
5
Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Successful task completion
20sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Successful task completion
65sec
Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
10

Amount of information displayed
Difficult – Easy
10

Change Process
Difficult – Easy
9


UAV Usability Specification – Scenario 3 – Abort the Mission due to Extremely Bad Weather.

Test Procedure:

Task 1. Fly at 3000ft at 150kt air speed.
Sensor Operator Select a right Focal length/ frame and engaging system.

Task 2. Activate Electro-Optical Sensor signal/ Infrared System/ Video Camera
Sensor Operator selects instrument system interface / screen interface.


Task 3. Activate Video/Cameras transmission.
Sensor Operator video in/out put Zoom Picture and Frame select to discriminate the object.

Task4. Changing at High Altitude and Speed Different Location at max air speed 350kt.
Sensor Operator increasing air speed/changing altitude at 50,000ft , then select 914mm or 36in
Focal length and update current data location


Task6. Abort the Mission.
Sensor Operator reviews current Weather in BAD condition and Request to Abort the Mission
















Test Results Scenario 3:

Abort the Mission due Bad Weather condition.



Task

Task Description or Survey Question
Focal Length/
Rate of Trans
Mission/AirSpeed
Value to Measure
Current Level
Minimum
Acceptable
Target
Image Transmission Rate bit/sec.
Test Results at 5sp. mile
Test Results at 10sp. mile
1
3000Ft.
150kt.
Time to Perform
20sec
30sec
20sec
15sec
13sec
2
Activate Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
180mm/
5Mbit/per
/sec
Time to Perform
65in
180sec
60sec
30sec
35sec
3
Engaging Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
20GHz per/sec
Time to Perform
40min
90sec
20ec
15sec
20sec
4
Changing at High Altitude and Air Speed Location
Increasing 350kt./914mm/10Mbit/30GHz
Time to Perform
35sec
120sec
60sec
15sec
10sec
5
Select_Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
35Mbit/
Per/sec
Mission complete
Time to Perform
80sec
120sec
30sec
20sec
25sec
6
Abort the MISSION
Permission Granted
Time to Perform
120sec
300sec
60sec
60sec
60sec
Quis








Quis
Overall reactions to system platform
Frustrating-
Satisfying
10
9
9
8
10
9
Quis
Ease of Sensor Operator
Difficult – Easy
9
8
10
9
10
8
Quis
Instrumental system display
Unlikely – Very Likely
9
9
8
10
9
10
Quis
System Synchronizing simultaneously
Hard to read – easy to read
9
10
9
8
10
9












Test Analysis 3:

Task
#
Task Description or
Survey Question
Value
Measured
Average Results
1
3000Ft. At 150kt air speed
Time to perform
10sec
2
Activate Focal Length/Electro-Optical/Infrared system/Video system
Time to perform
35sec
3
Video/Cameras Multi-Channel Link Transmission
Time to perform
25sec
4
Changing Fly Altitude 50,000ft /air speed at 350kt.
Time to perform
45sec
5
Activate Trojant Spirit II data link replicate and review
Successful task completion
15sec
6
Continuing/Repeat Process
Successful task completion
40sec
Eval




Overall reactions to the system
Frustrating – Satisfying
10

Ease of Use
Difficult – Easy
9

Likelihood of using again
Unlikely – Very Likely
10

Characters in the display
Hard to read – easy to read
10

Amount of information displayed
Difficult – Easy
10

Change Process
Difficult – Easy
9






Table Values

Task Description or Survey Question = test tasks, quality summary, or survey question
Value Measured = Time to perform a task, number of keyclicks, successful task completion, help requests, survey responses
Current Level = what it takes to perform the task today in a manual or automated fashion.
Minimum Acceptable = the lowest amount of quality and where a project ends when out of time or money
Planned Target = the initial project quality goal
Best Possible = an ideal project quality goal, given the best in technology, team skills, clear requirements, time and money
Observed Results = total of the test results divided by the population equals the average for any single wave of testing
Eval = Evaluation of survey results is on a scale of 1 to 9 with 1 being the lowest, worst, least desirable and 9 being the best result.


CS820 Learning




Today, I want to reflect on what I have learned in your class. The nature of this class is to examine the human reacting emerge to system and technology as well as research and documentation gathering data analysis to analyzing each categories and details usability and interaction systematic of current and future technology.
Hopefully, our systematic is influenced by the different usability and interaction of human and technology. This was an interesting class in the format of conducting usability and experiments, in that at the beginning of the class or so, the professor guidelines was details in Moodle , it was students giving the material and select a topics prototype. I liked the fact that you know how to motivate the other.
In the process, I learned some things about UAV project and way of presenting things learning and designing on my own web page to post using html language.
My project was on UAV predator and I gained a new appreciation for this topic reading and searching through it multiple times (and doing much research). It is a highly and mostly classify document that is often not much details. In many ways, this has become my favorite topics and interesting and probably will continue. I also had to do a paper on psychological and physiology concern with UAV. It was good to reflect on the message of the what I have found and search but also to connect some different and future technology. In some ways, through the reading and web material I truly discovered the truth that the UAV is “Silence Hunter , Killer and an appreciation of men and women in uniform to Witnesses” of what we could not see in through ours naked eyes.

My thought

As of today, I'm still struggling with class CS802 from Doctor Debra Beazley. I'm not for sure what is it does she want.

Class CS805 Doctor Howard Carol Project 3 Sampling Distributions

Sampling Distributions
Professor Doctor Carol Howard
Class CS 805
By Tai Cleveland
Project # 3
Due on Monday November 12th, 2007

As defined by David W. Stockburger, “the sampling distribution is the distribution of a sample statistic” (Stockburger, 1998). While it is also a distribution model, the values are statistics and not raw data. For example, if we have 10 samples, and we computed for the mean of those 10 samples several times, the results or the means we derived will be the values in our sampling distribution. The sampling distribution is represented by µ. There is always a subscript to the µ, which tells us what kind of statistics the sampling distribution refers to.
As mentioned, there are also sampling distributions for each statistic. If we will compute for the sampling distribution of medians, then we shall use medians, not means. However, it was found that the mean has a smaller standard of error than the median, even the mode, since the mean takes into consideration all the value or scores included in the sample. The median simply is the middle number, while the mode is the value that most often comes up in a sample. The standard of error (σ), on the other hand, is “the degree by which the computed statistics will differ from one another when calculated from sample of similar size and selected from similar population models” (Stockburger, 1998).
The sampling distribution of means is simply made of means as computed from a sample of scores or values. It was also found that the sampling distribution of means is closely related to the population distribution (Stockburger, 1998), which is called the Central Limit Theorem. This means that the mean of the sampling distribution of means and the mean of the population are equal. There are 2 rules under this theorem. To illustrate the first rule, below is an example of five 5 values, from which scores were derived.
Population of values
Samples from the Population
Means from the samples
1
1, 2, 4, 5
3
2
1, 2, 3, 4
2.5
3
2, 3, 4, 5
3.5
4
1, 3, 4, 5
3.25
5
1 ,2, 3, 5
2.75
Population distribution = 3
(All possible samples) n = 4
Total = 15 / 5 = 3

In computing for the Central Limit Theorem, follow the steps outlined below:
1. Start with the population values. In this case, we had 5 values in our population.
2. Obtain all possible samples. In each population, we were able to derive a maximum of 4 samples.
3. Add up all samples in each population, then divide it by the n or the sample size. This will give us the mean for that particular population.
4. Add all the means, then divide by the N or the sample population. This will yield the same value as that of the population distribution.
The second rule under the Central Limit Theorem states that the sampling distribution of means will have a normal curve regardless of the shape of the population distribution (Sampling Distribution Demo). The reason behind this rule is that even though the samples are taken from different samples, the means of the samples will always be near to the center of the population distribution.
The Central Limit Theorem works well in small sample sizes as shown above, though it works even greater with a larger sample size, as it is closer to the true population. As such, the Central Limit Theorem is often the basis of most hypothesis testing and sampling theory (Stockburger, 1998). Additionally, the Central Limit also serves as a powerful tool for most researchers, as this always has a normal curve, providing scientists and researchers the basis or justification for several studies, even naturally occurring phenomena (Stockburger, 1998).
References
Sampling Distributions. Sampling Distributions Demo. Accessed October 31, 2007, from
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/dwallace/ssample.html
Stockburger, David W. (1998). The Sampling Distribution. Introductory Statistics:
Concepts, Models, and Applications, 1.0. Accessed October 29, 2007, from http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/introbook/SBK19.htm

CS805 Doctor Howard Project #2 Normal model

Normal Model
Tai Cleveland
Class CS805
Doctor Carol Howard
Project #2 Normal Model
Due on Monday November 5th, 2007





The following lists the number of errors per 10000 lines of code for a large service-oriented architecture (SOA) software project on the inventory management system of Kuiper Leda, a global electronics components provider ().
516
548
566
534
551
548
523
538
523
529
486
558
574
586
552

We assume a normal model in analyzing the data above (Weiers, 2005). First we determine measures of central tendency: the mean, mode, and median to describe the statistics of the number of errors per 10000 lines of code for this IT project. The following shows the descriptive statistics.
Mean



Median
The data is first sorted in the order from lowest to highest as shown below:
486 516 523 523 529 534 538 546 548 551 552 558 566 574 586

The 8th ordered measurement is the median of 15 observations.

Mode: There are two measurements for 523, thus serving as the mode.





Standard deviationTo measure the dispersion of the data, we also calculate the standard deviation of the above data, as shown in the following:




Another way of describing the variation or spread in the data set is to determine the location of values that divide a set of observations into four equal parts. This technique is known as quartiles (Weiers, 2005). To do this we first multiply 0.25 to the sample size n added by 1: 0.25 (15 + 1) = 0.25 (16) = 4. Therefore, the first and third quartile values are located at positions 4 and 12. The 4th value in the ordered array used to determine the median is 523; the 12th value is 558. These are the first and third quartiles, respectively. Below is the 5-Number-Summary, which includes the minimum, median and maximum values:
Minimum: 486
First Quartile: 523
Median: 546
Third Quartile: 558
Maximum: 586
The summary above allows us to make the box plot, which is shown below:
The box plot shows that the middle 50 percent of the codes have between 523 and 558 errors per 10000 lines of code. The distance between the ends of the box above, 35 errors per 10000 lines of code, is known as the interquartile range, which shows the dispersion of the majority of errors per 10000 lines of code on Kuiper Leda’s SOA project.
Lastly, we plot the histogram of values using a class interval of 20 errors per 10000 lines of code. The histogram is illustrated below:


A histogram groups data into classes (Weiers, 2005). When we organized the data into nine classes, we lost the exact value of the measurements. Since we only have a small number of samples, the histogram shown above is not as smooth as we expect from a normal distribution. Nevertheless, the histogram does exhibit central tendency, with well-defined mean, median, mode, and standard deviation thereby self-consistently validating the normal model that we had assumed before analyzing the data.
Reference
Weiers, R.M. (2005). Introduction to business statistics. 5th ed. Duxbury: Brooks/Cole.

CS805 Doctor Howard Carol Project #1

Tai Cleveland
Class CS 805
Project # 1 Hacker Attacks
Dr. Carol Howard
Due Monday Oct 29th, 2007



Hacker Attacks
Aside from DUI incidents, the war on terrorism and the continuous propagation of viruses on the internet, web server attacks has been one of the most serious crimes as to date. It has not been given considerable attention unlike the aforementioned crimes and incidents. According to a recent survey conducted by Zone-H (2005), web server attacks and web defacements grew about 36% in 2004 – this is about 400,000 reported incidents in that year alone. Christmas holidays are the most popular time for malicious hackers to attack sites.
Meanwhile, Web Application Security Consortium reported the following statistics from 1999 to 2007 (2007):
Year
Total
Security Breaches
Vulnerability Disclosures
1999
1

1
2000
5
2
3
2001
6
1
5
2002
4
3
1
2003
9
3
6
2004
17
6
11
2005
62
31
31
2006
44
18
26
2007
45
42
3













On the other hand, the following table summarizes the number of incidents recorded based on attack classification (2007). It must be noted that such data falls under the rule of small numbers.

Class
Total
Security Breaches
Vulnerability Disclosures
Cross-site Scripting
54
16
38
Unknown
41
38
3
SQL Injection
25
16
9
Insufficient Authorization
22
9
13
Credential/Session Prediction
16
3
13
Insufficient Authentication
14
6
8
OS Commanding
10
9
1
Predictable Resource Location
7
3
4
Other
7
6
1
Weak Password Recovery Validation
4
1
3
Information Leakage
4

4
Content Spoofing
4
4

Abuse of Functionality
4
3
1
Misconfiguration
3
3

Worm
2
2

Insufficient Anti-automation
2
2

Known Vulnerabity
2
1
1
Denial of Service
1
1

Brute Force
1
1

Defacement
1
1

Directory Indexing
1

1
HTTP Response Splitting
1

1
Insufficient Session Expiration
1
1

Path Traversal
1

1
Phishing
1
1

Redirection
1

1
Insufficient Process Validation
1
1




References

BBC News. (2005). “Web server attacks 'growing fast': More than 2,500 web servers every day are being hacked, reveals a report.” Retrieved November 2007 from website: .
Web Application Consortium. (2007). “Web Hacking Statistics.” Retrieved November 2007 from website: .