skip to main content
10.1145/3489449.3489986acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseuroplopConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cooperator: Automating Human-Machine Interfaces to Improve User Experience and Task Efficiency: Cooperator

Published:23 January 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Human-machine interfaces (HMIs) of industrial machines are based on judgements and expectations of experts about how end users will configure, program, and interact with them. Diverse end users and usage contexts, however, require more flexibility of HMIs, for example, to improve labor efficiency by automating various tasks in an interactive way. Cooperator uses software robots and other user interface automation techniques to assist end users with programming, configuring, and interacting with industrial machines in a flexible and adaptive way. Cooperator enables case-by-case extensions of machine functions and interaction modes by connecting to the HMI of industrial machines and acting as a second user. This way, Cooperator empowers end users to go beyond vendor-provided features when interacting with machines. The target audience of this pattern are end users who seeks to improve their interaction experience with a broad range of industrial machines, while avoiding vendor lock-in.

References

  1. Asatiani, A., and Penttinen, E. (2016). Turning robotic process automation into commercial success case OpusCapita. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 6(2), 67-74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Maltais D. (2018). Robotiq's Insights Now Provides Remote Access to the Robot Cell. Retrieved June 18, 2021 from https://blog.robotiq.com/robotiqs-insights-now-provides-remote-access-to-the-robot-cell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ionescu, T. B., Fröhlich, J., and Lachenmayr, M. (2020). Improving safeguards and functionality in industrial collaborative robot HMIs through GUI automation. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Huesman, J. (2016). Spaceport Command and Control System User Interface Testing. NASA USRP Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kasper, M., Correll, N., & Yeh, T. (2014). Abstracting perception and manipulation in end-user robot programming using Sikuli. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Polden, J., Pan, Z., Larkin, N., Van Duin, S., and Norrish, J. (2011). Offline programming for a complex welding system using DELMIA automation. In Robotic Welding, Intelligence and Automation (pp. 341-349). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Warner, P. C. (2015). Automatic configuration of programmable logic controller emulators. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Corvin, C. M. (2015). A Feasibility Study on the Application of the ScriptGenE Framework as an Anomaly Detection System in Industrial Control Systems. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallenstein, J. K. (2017). Integration of the Network and Application Layers of Automatically Configured Programmable Logic Controller Honeypots. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Girtz, K., Mullins, B., Rice, M., and Lopez, J. (2016). Practical application layer emulation in industrial control system honeypots. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ionescu, T. B., and Schlund, S. (2019). A participatory programming model for democratizing cobot technology in public and industrial fablabs. Procedia CIRP, 81(1), 93-98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., and Stal, M. (2008). Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ionescu, T. B. (2021). Adaptive Simplex Architecture for Safe, Real-Time Robot Path Planning. Sensors, 21(8), 2589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, F., Fröhlich, J., Schall, D., Lachenmayr, M., Stückjürgen, C., Meixner, S., and Buschmann, F. (2018,). Microservice patterns for the life cycle of industrial edge software. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (EuroPlop’18). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler, M. (2002). Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., ... and Ng, A. Y. (2009). ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System. In Proceedings of ICRA Workshop on Open-Source Software. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Iba, S., Paredis, C. J., and Khosla, P. K. (2005). Interactive multimodal robot programming. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 24(1), 83-104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Leotta, M., Clerissi, D., Ricca, F., and Tonella, P. (2014). Visual vs. DOM-based web locators: An empirical study. In International Conference on Web Engineering. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Bibeault, B., and Kats, Y. (2008). jQuery in Action. Dreamtech Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Leotta, M., Clerissi, D., Ricca, F., and Spadaro, C. (2013). Improving test suites maintainability with the page object pattern: An industrial case study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hanmer, R. (2013). Patterns for Fault-Tolerant Software. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Schumacher, M., Fernandez-Buglioni, E., Hybertson, D., Buschmann, F., and Sommerlad, P. (2013). Security Patterns: Integrating Security and Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Github. 2021. GitHub Copilot. Retrieved September 1, 2021 from https://copilot.github.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Cooperator: Automating Human-Machine Interfaces to Improve User Experience and Task Efficiency: Cooperator
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          EuroPLoP '21: Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs
          July 2021
          387 pages
          ISBN:9781450389976
          DOI:10.1145/3489449

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 January 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate216of354submissions,61%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)22
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format