Mission- and safety-critical domains are more and more characterized by interactive and multimedia systems varying from large-scale technologies (e. g. airplanes) to wearable devices (e. g. smartglasses) operated by professional staff or volunteering laypeople. While technical availability, reliability and security of computer-based systems are of utmost importance, outcomes and performances increasingly depend on sufficient human-machine interaction or even cooperation to a large extent. While this i-com Special Issue on “Human-Machine Interaction and Cooperation in Safety-Critical Systems” presents recent research results from specific application domains like aviation, automotive, crisis management and healthcare, this introductory paper outlines the diversity of users, technologies and interaction or cooperation models involved.
Human-machine systems can be characterized as mission- or safety-critical “if the[ir] failure […] could lead to consequences that are determined to be unacceptable”  and if they entail substantial risks due to mass, energy or information associated with them . Domains like aviation, automotive, crisis management, critical infrastructures, healthcare, medical technology, military or railway are more and more characterized by interactive and multimedia systems. Their technical availability, reliability and security alone won’t lead to required outcomes and performances because “when the user interaction with a safety-critical system goes wrong, the result can be catastrophic” .
Although specific challenges have to be met in order to develop usable solutions for a certain domain, common issues with respect to human-machine interfaces can be identified. For example,
In 2014, the German Informatics Society (GI) published five “Grand Challenges of Informatics” . Three of them can be associated with safety-critical human-machine systems:
systemic risks in world-wide networks requiring methods of communication geared to target groups;
ubiquitous human-computer interaction affecting almost all aspects of human lives;
reliability of software depending on performances of both humans and machines.
A new special-interest group was established 2015 as part of the technical committee “human-computer-interaction” of the GI to foster exchange between existing domain specific networks.1 Besides workshops in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as well as special issues in 2015  this special issue is an outcome of this work.
In the following sections, the diversity of users (see section 2), technologies (see section 3) and interaction or cooperation models (see section 4) potentially involved in mission- or safety-critical contexts is outlined. The contributions to this Special Issue are introduced in section 5.
2 Users: Domain Experts, Consumers and Volunteers
In safety-critical domains, four basic user groups can be distinguished with respect to training and experience:
domain experts with a high degree of training and experience in system usage (e. g. pilots);
domain experts with a limited degree of training and experience in system usage (e. g. crisis managers);
owners of consumer products and personal infrastructure with little or no training at all (e. g. car drivers);
volunteering laypeople without special training (e. g. social media users in emergencies or disasters).
It is worth mentioning that each group represents a heterogeneous set of people and several physical, physiological, psychological and psychosocial factors affect individual and group performances. For example, car drivers participating in safe driving trainings gain experience in dealing with extraordinary weather conditions or emergency situations. However, such measures can’t be compared to ones trained professionals (e. g. pilots, power plant operators) have to deal with. As applicants they are often subject to elaborate assessments and have to pass several barriers to recruitment . Training and development are important parts of their professional life [23, 50]. Usually, they have a good understanding of technological aspects (e. g. automation) and have developed appropriate mental models of their application area .
Trained professionals have to distinguished from domain experts using interactive systems with only a limited degree of training and experience (e. g. crisis managers, members of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)). While they possess domain-specific knowledge and skills, computer literacy, technology acceptance and expertise in using specific applications might depend more strongly on personal interests and job history (e. g. previous work in dispatch centres or command vehicles). For example, most members of rescue forces and civil protection units (see Figure 1) currently are used to managing routine and extraordinary missions with the aid of the paper-based artefacts (e. g. forms, tables, charts, maps, private notes) and several means of communication (e. g. radio, mobile phone). However, these tools will likely be replaced or complemented by computer-based solutions like rugged tablet PCs . Such advanced interactive and multimedia systems still “have to be incorporated in curriculums of EMS employees’ qualification and training”  in order to ensure a certain degree of expertise.
Because consumer products and personal infrastructure (e. g. highly automated cars, smart home applications) more and more show safety-critical characteristics, their owners representing the public at large have to be regarded as crucial parts of safety-critical systems. On the contrary to trained professionals and domain experts, they have to meet only a few requirements (e. g. passing a theoretical test and a driving test) or none at all (e. g. anyone can buy smart home systems). Therefore, domain knowledge, computer expertise in general and system-specific expertise will vary strongly. Appropriate mental models can hardly be assumed and will most likely not be induced by manuals.
Volunteers (“emergent groups”) are “private citizens who work together in pursuit of collective goals relevant to actual or potential disasters but whose organization has not yet become institutionalized” . Contrary to myths, citizens of affected areas seldom panic, are not helpless or dependent on external rescuers and do not loot . The essential influencing factors for the emergence of such groups are (a) an extra community setting, which legitimizes the group; (b) a crucial event, which is perceived as a threat; (c) a supportive social climate with positive values, norms and beliefs regarding the necessity of collaborative actions; (d) an existing social network, so that communication can take place; and (e) available resources such as information, knowledge or skills . Reuter et al.  summarize the perception of volunteers without special training: On the one hand, volunteer groups are conceived negatively [19, 35] and on the other hand their existence is valued as an essential factor when fighting a crisis . Furthermore, it is stated that official plans do not incorporate self-help [5, 52] although, as spotted by another study, self-help is an important part of official relief actions in safety- and time-critical circumstances . Nowadays social media play an important role in volunteer activities [27, 41].
3 Technology: Large-scale, Cars, Mobile and Wearable Devices
Also related to technology a high diversity can be observed: Traditionally, safety-critical domains are characterized by large-scale technologies like airplanes, power plants or ships (see Figure 2). It is worth mentioning that working environments and workplace layouts in control rooms and stations, in cockpits or at ship bridges differ from each other in several ways. While large control rooms of power plants consist of hundreds of displays and instruments which are operated and supervised by several team members, airplane cockpits accommodate two pilots who are closely surrounded (“embedded” ) by their instruments and, in case of a Boeing 777, by “six primary flat-panel displays and several other smaller displays” .
On the contrary to airplanes or power plants, dispatch centers for police departments, fire departments (Figure 4) or Emergency Medical Services (see Figure 3) cannot be considered safety-critical due to masses or energies associated with them but rather due to data and information they handle. As Knight  points out: “Many modern information systems are becoming safety-critical in a general sense because financial loss and even loss of life can result from their failure.”
Cars are likely the most often used safety-critical mass product. In industrialised countries, the majority of people aged from 17 (Germany) to 80 and above drive a car. In case of an accident they risk their own life as well as the life from passengers and other road users or pedestrians. Dense traffic situations and high driving speed as well as the distraction due to integrated infotainment systems are a big challenge for the driver and his / her situation awareness. Several advanced driver assistant systems have been developed with the goal to increase comfort and safety, e. g. collision warning and automated braking. Currently cars with technology for high automated driving (see  for different levels of automations) are available, but further research is required until reliable fully automated driving systems without any need for human intervention will be available. Until then, drivers still need to be part of the control loop, at least in some situations. This requires a new form of vehicle-driver interaction, as drivers’ task changes from permanent execution of driving operations to monitoring the car performance or in high automation vehicles to reacting on take-over requests. Therewith driving changes to a human-machine cooperation, a new form which drivers need to learn to safely operate the vehicle and HMI designers still need to develop concepts for to minimize operating errors. Due to high diversity of the users and the huge variety of traffic situations user tests with large number of participants need to be executed with tools from simple driving simulators (see Figure 5) up to prototype vehicles.
In many safety-critical domains (e. g. healthcare), mobile and ubiquitous information access independently from stationary workstations is deemed necessary. Therefore, rugged tablet PCs, handheld computers, optical head-mounted displays (“smartglasses”) and computerized wristwatches (“smartwatches”) are gradually introduced (see Figure 6).
However, required outcomes and performances in safety-critical contexts can’t be ensured by improving computer-based tools (e. g. availability, connectivity, reliability and security) and by taking human factors into account (qualification, training, working conditions) alone. Designing human-machine-relationships entails several challenges with regard to task or function allocation, interaction design, trust and responsibility.
4 Interaction and Cooperation
While the design of safety-critical human-machine interfaces has been focussed on single users and devices in the past, it needs to consider “many people – many machines” and more dynamic task or function allocation in the future. Currently, several researchers propose a shift “from human-machine interaction to human-machine cooperation” . Flemisch et al.  state that after years of domain-specific research activities human-machine cooperation is one the essential topics in designing (safety-critical) human-machine systems.
Apart from cooperation between humans and machines, cooperation between humans, either domain experts or laypeople, will have an impact on the design of safety-critical human-machine systems. For example, social media platforms and mobile apps are nowadays used as an important tool by citizens in emergencies .
Furthermore, interface and interaction design supporting efficient and safe usage of computer-based systems under safety- and time-critical circumstances will remain a major challenge independently from a specific interaction or cooperation model. Tangible multimodal user interfaces  and future mobile interfaces have to designed for “dynamicity of contexts of use, interaction on the move and device management (e. g. power availability) […]. This includes, for instances, multiple devices issues such as designing a single application to be used on various mobile (or not) devices as well as designing various applications to be deployed on multiple devices to be used by a single user” . Usability evaluations and impact analyses of interaction and cooperation models on acceptance and performances have to be carefully considered [3, 4, 9].
The five articles in this Special Issue Issue reflect the diversity of users, technologies and their relationships outlined in the first sections of this introduction and emphasize the importance of considering various aspects of human-machine interfaces in mission- or safety-critical domains.
In “A configurable footswitch unit for the open networked neurosurgical OR – development, evaluation and future perspectives” Dell’Anna, Janß, Clusmann, and Rademacher describe the user-centered design and evaluation of a configurable central footswitch for open networked neurosurgical operating room settings. They show that efficiency of human-machine interaction in safety-critical contexts can be improved.
In “Big Data in a Crisis? Creating Social Media Datasets for Crisis Management Research” Reuter, Ludwig, Kotthaus, Kaufhold, von Radziewski, and Pipek describe the design and evaluation of an application which supports members of emergency services and researchers in collecting social media datasets for crisis management. The authors show how “Big Data” can be applied in safety-critical contexts in a user- and task-centered way.
In “Joint Decision Making and Cooperative Driver-Vehicle Interaction during Critical Driving Situations” Altendorf, Weßel, Baltzer, Canpolat, and Flemisch propose a framework for joint decision-making relying on common goals and norms of human drivers and automation. It is based on the description of individual processes for situation assessment and decision-making on different layers of the driving task.
Eschen, Keye-Ehing, and Gayraud in their article “Safety-Critical Personality Aspects in Human-Machine Teams of Aviation” focus on personality aspects correlating with safety-critical performances in aviation. A study with 156 participants was conducted and based on the combination of the Hybrid Team Questionnaire (HTQ) and the Hybrid Interaction Scenario (HTS). Some personality aspects concerning disinhibiting, spontaneous behaviour and sensation seeking show correlations with poorer performance in simulations of future human-machine interaction.
In “Trust in Technology as Safety Aspect: Use Case Highly Automated Driving” Wintersberger and Riener present an interaction model for trust calibration issuing personalized messages in real time. They describe the results of two user studies according to trust and driving ethics in highly automated driving. In the first one with 48 participants, they compared mental and emotional states of front-seat passengers to get insight into the dispositional trust of potential users of automated vehicles. In the second one they examined the willingness of drivers to risk even severe accidents depending on the number and age of pedestrians that would otherwise be sacrificed.
About the authors
Tilo Mentler, Christian Reuter and Stefan Geisler are founding members and members of the executive board of the special interest group “Human-Computer-Interaction in Safety-Critical Systems” within the technical committee “Human-Computer Interaction” of the German Informatics Society (GI).
Tilo Mentler is junior professor of safety-critical human-computer systems in technology and medicine at the Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems (IMIS) of the University of Luebeck. His main areas of interest are human-computer interaction in safety-critical contexts, usability engineering and interaction design of mobile and wearable devices. He is a founding member and vice-chairman of the section “HCI in Safety-Critical Systems” of the GI. Prof. Mentler is delegate of the GI to the IFIP Domain Committee on IT in Disaster Risk Reduction.
Christian Reuter is divisional director of crisis information systems at the Institute for Information Systems of the University of Siegen. He received a PhD for his work on (inter-)organizational collaboration technology design for crisis management. Before his scientific engagement he was full time consultant for a telecommunication corporation. He has acquired, conducted and managed national and international consultancy and research projects and has published about 85 scientific articles in information systems, human-computer interaction, crisis management and social media. He is voluntary founding chairman of the section “HCI in Safety-Critical Systems” of the GI.
Stefan Geisler is Professor for Applied Computer Science and Human-Machine Interaction at Hochschule Ruhr West, University of Applied Sciences in Bottrop, Germany. After he received his Ph. D. from the Technical University Clausthal he worked for several years in the industry, at Ford Werke GmbH in Cologne. There he worked in different automotive HMI projects from research to serial development. 2010 he was offered a professorship. In his research he continues working on automotive HMI, but also on usability of different kinds of technology in times of demographic change (User Interfaces for Ambient Assisted Living systems) and for safety-critical systems. He is a founding member of the section “HCI in Safety-Critical Systems” of the GI.
 COHEN, P. R.; MCGEE, D. R.: Tangible multimodal interfaces for safety-critical applications. In: Communications of the ACM Bd. 47 (2004), Nr. 1, S. 41.10.1145/962081.962103Search in Google Scholar
 COSKUN, E.; GRABOWSKI, M.: Impacts of User Interface Complexity on User Acceptance and Performance in Safety-Critical Systems. In: Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Bd. 2 (2005), Nr. 1.10.2202/1547-7355.1109Search in Google Scholar
 DAHL, Y.; ALSOS, O.; SVANÆS, D.: Evaluating Mobile Usability: The Role of Fidelity in Full-Scale Laboratory Simulations with Mobile ICT for Hospitals. Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends. Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends. In: JACKO, J. A. (Hrsg.): Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends. 5610. Aufl. Berlin: Springer, 2009, S. 232–241.10.1007/978-3-642-02574-7_26Search in Google Scholar
 DYNES, R. R.: Social Capital: Dealing with Community Emergencies. In: Homeland Security Affairs Bd. 2 (2006), Nr. 2.Search in Google Scholar
 EIMLER, S. C.; GEISLER, S.: Zur Akzeptanz Autonomen Fahrens – Eine A-Priori Studie. In: WEISBECKER, A.; BURMESTER, M.; SCHMIDT, A. (Hrsg.): Mensch und Computer 2015 – Workshopband. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2015, S. 533–540.10.1515/9783110443905-075Search in Google Scholar
 FLEMISCH, F.; BALTZER, M.; ALTENDORF, E.; LÓPEZ, D.; RUDOLPH, C.: Kooperativität und Arbitrierung versus Autonomie: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur kooperativen Automation mit anschaulichen Beispielen. In: DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR LUFT- UND RAUMFAHRT – LILIENTHAL-OBERT E. V. (Hrsg.): 57. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik der DGLR: Kooperation und kooperative Systeme in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung. Bonn, Germany, 2016, S. 1–14.Search in Google Scholar
 GALLIERS, J.; SUTCLIFFE, A.; MINOCHA, S.: An impact analysis method for safety-critical user interface design. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Bd. 6 (1999), Nr. 4, S. 341–369.10.1145/331490.331493Search in Google Scholar
 GESELLSCHAFT FÜR INFORMATIK E. V.: Die Grand Challenges der Informatik. URL https://www.gi.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Download/GI-Grand_Challenges-Brosch%C3%BCre2014.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
 HEINTZ, A.; EIßFELDT, H.; CONZELMANN, K.: Empirische Validierung der Auswahl und Ausbildung von Fluglotsen für die DFS. In: GRANDT, M.; SCHMERWITZ, S. (Hrsg.): 55. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt Lilienthal-Oberth e. V. Ausbildung & Training in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung. Bonn: DGLR e. V., 2013, S. 61–70.Search in Google Scholar
 HELSLOOT, IRA; RUITENBERG, A: Citizen Response to Disasters : a Survey of Literature and Some Practical Implications. In: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Bd. 12 (2004), Nr. 3, S. 98–111.10.1111/j.0966-0879.2004.00440.xSearch in Google Scholar
 HENNECKEN, B.; WITT, O.; SCHWARZ, J.: Makro-Ergonomische Unterstützung in Operationszentralen der Deutschen Marine. In: ZIEGLER, J.; SCHMIDT, A. (Hrsg.): Mensch & Computer 2010: Interaktive Kulturen. München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010, S. 103–112.10.1524/9783486853483.103Search in Google Scholar
 HERCZEG, M.: Prozessführungssysteme: Sicherheitskritische Mensch-Maschine-Systeme und interaktive Medien zur Überwachung und Steuerung von Prozessen in Echtzeit: De Gruyter, 2014.10.1524/9783486720051Search in Google Scholar
 KJELDSKOV, J.; STAGE, J.: Designing the handheld maritime communicator. In: ARNOWITZ, J.; CHALMERS, A.; SWACK, T.; ANDERSON, R.; ZAPOLSKI, J. (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences. New York: NY: ACM, 2003, S. 1–15.10.1145/997078.997080Search in Google Scholar
 KNECHT, C.; MÜHLETHALER, C. ZIMMERMANN, J.; BINZ, S.; PAINADATH, R.; WÄFLER, T.: Vertrauen in die Automatisierung, fehlende Situation Awareness + Fertigkeitsverlust durch automatisierte Systeme – Eine subjektive Einschätzung aus der Linienpilotenperspektive. In: GRANDT, M.; S., S. (Hrsg.): 56. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik der DGLR: Der Mensch zwischen Automatisierung, Kompetenz und Verantwortung. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt – Lilienthal-Obert e. V., 2014, S. 215–230.Search in Google Scholar
 KNIGHT, J. C.: Safety Critical Systems. Challenges and Directions. In: TRACZ, W.; MAGEE, J.; YOUNG, M. (Hrsg.): ICSE ’02: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering. New York: NY: ACM, 2002, S. 547–550.10.1145/581339.581406Search in Google Scholar
 LANZARA, G. F.: Ephemeral Organisations in Extreme Environments: emergence, strategy, extinction. In: Journal of Management Studies Bd. 20 (1983), Nr. 1, S. 71–95.10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00199.xSearch in Google Scholar
 LAUER, W.; JANß, A.; RADERMACHER, K: Risiken der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion im OP. In: KAIN, S.; STRUVE, D.; WANDKE, H. (Hrsg.): Workshop-Proceedings der Tagung Mensch & Computer 2009. Berlin: Logos-Verlag, 2009, S. 305–307.Search in Google Scholar
 LEIFLER, O.: Combining Technical and Human-Centered Strategies for Decision Support in Command and Control – The ComPlan Approach. In: FRIEDRICH, F.; VAN DE WALLE, B. (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management ISCRAM 2008, 2008, S. 504–515.Search in Google Scholar
 LEITNER, G.; AHLSTRÖM, D.; HITZ, M.: Usability of Mobile Computing in Emergency Response Systems – Lessons Learned and Future Directions. In: HOLZINGER, A. (Hrsg.): HCI and usability for medicine and health care. Third Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society. Berlin: Springer, 2007, S. 241–254.10.1007/978-3-540-76805-0_20Search in Google Scholar
 LEUCHTER, S.; JÜRGENSOHN, T.: Situation Awareness – Training für Fluglotsenschüler. In: OBERQUELLE, H.; OPPERMANN, R.; KRAUSE, J. (Hrsg.): Mensch & Computer 2001: 1. Fachübergreifende Konferenz. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 2011, S. 437–438.10.1007/978-3-322-80108-1_64Search in Google Scholar
 LEY, B.; LUDWIG, T.; PIPEK, V.; RANDALL, D.; REUTER, C.; WIEDENHOEFER, T.: Information and Expertise Sharing in Inter-Organizational Crisis Management. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing (JCSCW) Bd. 23 (2014), Nr. 4–6, S. 347–387.10.1007/s10606-014-9205-2Search in Google Scholar
 LINDHOLM, C.; HÖST, M.: Introducing usability testing in the risk management process in software development. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care (SEHC ’13). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 2013, S. 5–11.10.1109/SEHC.2013.6602470Search in Google Scholar
 LORENZEN, D.: Risikokommunikation bei Naturkatastrophen – Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der Befragung im Herbst 2004: Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 2005.Search in Google Scholar
 LUDWIG, T.; KOTTHAUS, C.; REUTER, C.; VAN DONGEN, S.; PIPEK, V.: Situated crowdsourcing during disasters: Managing the tasks of spontaneous volunteers through public displays. In: International Journal on Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS) Bd. inpress (2016).10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.008Search in Google Scholar
 MAGRABI, F.: Using cognitive models to evaluate safety-critical interfaces in healthcare. In: CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’08). New York: ACM, 2008, S. 3567–3572.10.1145/1358628.1358892Search in Google Scholar
 MARTINIE, C.; PALANQUE, P.: Design, Development and Evaluation Challenges for Future Mobile User Interfaces in Safety-Critical Contexts. In: CAUCHARD, J.; LANDAY, J.; LI, Y. (Hrsg.): Proceeding FutureMobileUI ’15 Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Future Mobile User Interfaces. New York: ACM, 2015, S. 5–7.10.1145/2754633.2754635Search in Google Scholar
 MENTLER, T.; HERCZEG, M.: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Mobile Computing for Emergency Medical Services. In: AHRAM, T.; KARWOWSKI, W.; MAREK, T. (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE, 2014, S. 4149–4160.Search in Google Scholar
 MENTLER, T.; HERCZEG, M.: Interactive cognitive artifacts for enhancing situation awareness of incident commanders in mass casualty incidents. In: Journal of Interaction Science Bd. 3 (2015), Nr. 1, S. 109.10.1186/s40166-015-0012-0Search in Google Scholar
 MENTLER, T.; HERCZEG, M.: On the Role of User Experience in Mission- or Safety-Critical Systems. In: WEYERS, B.; DITTMAR, A. (Hrsg.): Mensch und Computer 2016 – Workshopband. Aachen: Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V., 2016.Search in Google Scholar
 MENTLER, T.; KAPPEL, J.; WÜNSCH, L.; HERCZEG, M.: Photo-enriched Documentation during Surgeries with Google Glass: An Exploration Usability Study in a Department of Paediatric Surgery. In: i-com Bd. 15 (2016), S. 171–178.10.1515/icom-2016-0017Search in Google Scholar
 PALANQUE, P.; KOORNNEEF, F.; JOHNSON, C.; SZWILLUS, G.; WRIGHT, P.: Safety-critical interaction: usability in incidents and accidents. In: CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’04). New York: ACM, 2004, S. 1600–1601.10.1145/985921.986165Search in Google Scholar
 PFEIL, J.: Maßnahmen des Katastrophenschutzes und Reaktionen der Bürger in Hochwassergebieten. Bonn, Germany: Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e. V. (DKKV), 2000 — ISBN 3933181194.Search in Google Scholar
 ST. PIERRE, M.; HOFINGER, G.; BUERSCHAPER, C.: Crisis management in acute care settings. Human factors and team psychology in a high stakes environment. Berlin: Springer, 2008.10.1007/978-3-540-71062-2Search in Google Scholar
 QUARANTELLI, E. L.: Emergent Citizen Groups in Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Activities, University of Delaware, 1984.Search in Google Scholar
 RASMUSSEN, J.: Strategies for State Identification and Diagnosis in Supervisory Control Tasks, and Design of Computer-Based Support Systems. In: ROUSE, W. B. (Hrsg.): Advances in Man-Machine Systems Research. Bd. 1, 1984, S. 139–193.Search in Google Scholar
 REDMILL, F.; RAJAN, J.: Human factors in safety-critical systems. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997.Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, C.: Emergent Collaboration Infrastructures: Technology Design for Inter-Organizational Crisis Management (Ph. D. Thesis). Siegen, Germany: Springer Gabler, 2014 — ISBN 978-3-658-08585-8.Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; HEGER, OLIVER; PIPEK, VOLKMAR: Combining Real and Virtual Volunteers through Social Media. In: COMES, T.; FIEDRICH, F.; FORTIER, S.; GELDERMANN, J.; MÜLLER, T. (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Baden-Baden, Germany, 2013, S. 780–790.Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; LUDWIG, THOMAS; KOTTHAUS, CHRISTOPH; KAUFHOLD, MARC-ANDRÉ; RADZIEWSKI, ELMAR VON; PIPEK, VOLKMAR: Big Data in a Crisis? Creating Social Media Datasets for Emergency Management Research. In: i-com: Journal of Interactive Media Bd. 15 (2016), Nr. 3.10.1515/icom-2016-0036Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; LUDWIG, THOMAS; PIPEK, VOLKMAR: Ad Hoc Participation in Situation Assessment: Supporting Mobile Collaboration in Emergencies. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (ToCHI) Bd. 21, ACM (2014), Nr. 5.10.1145/2651365Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; MENTLER, TILO; GEISLER, STEFAN: Guest Editorial Preface: Special Issue on Human Computer Interaction in Critical Systems I: Citizen and Volunteers. In: International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM) Bd. 7 (2015), Nr. 2.Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; PIPEK, VOLKMAR: Krisenkommunikation trainieren: Ein webgestützter Ansatz. In: WANDKE, H.; KAIN, S.; STRUVE, D. (Hrsg.): Mensch & Computer 2009: Grenzenlos frei?. Berlin, Germany: Oldenbourg-Verlag, 2009, S. 93–102.10.1524/9783486598551.93Search in Google Scholar
 REUTER, CHRISTIAN; SPIELHOFER, THOMAS: Towards Social Resilience: A Quantitative and Qualitative Survey on Citizens’ Perception of Social Media in Emergencies in Europe. In: Journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change (TFSC) Bd. onlinefirs (2016).10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.038Search in Google Scholar
 RITZ, F.; BRÜNGGER, J.; KLEINDIENST, C.: Teamtraining zur erfolgreichen Bewältigung unerwarteter und unbekannter sicherheitskritischer Situationen in Leitwarten. In: GRANDT, M.; SCHMERWITZ, S. (Hrsg.): 55. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik der DGLR: Ausbildung und Training in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt – Lilienthal-Obert e. V., 2013, S. 1–12.Search in Google Scholar
 SAE International: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. Surface vehicle information report. Warrendale, Pa., 2014.Search in Google Scholar
 SAVAGE-KNEPSHIELD, P. THOMAS, J.; PAULILLO, C.; DAVIS, J.; QUARLES, D.; MITCHELL, D.: Designing the User Experience for C4ISR Systems in the U. S. Army. In: MARCUS, A. (Hrsg.): Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience Design for Everyday Life Applications and Services. 8519. Aufl. Cham: Springer Internat, 2014, S. 338–346.10.1007/978-3-319-07635-5_33Search in Google Scholar
 SCHUBERT, E.; HASLBECK, A.: Gestaltungskriterien für Szenarien in Flugsimulatoren zur Untersuchung von Verhalten und Leistung von Verkehrspiloten. In: GRANDT, M.; SCHMERWITZ, S. (Hrsg.): 56. Fachausschusssitzung Anthropotechnik der DGLR: Der Mensch zwischen Automatisierung, Kompetenz und Verantwortung. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt – Lilienthal-Obert e. V., 2014, S. 125–137.Search in Google Scholar
 SCHWARZ, T.; KEHR, F.; OORTMANN, H.; REITERER, H.: Die Leitwarte von heute verstehen – die Leitwarte von morgen gestalten! In: ZIEGLER, J.; SCHMIDT, A. (Hrsg.): Mensch & Computer 2010: Interaktive Kulturen. München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010, S. 93–102.10.1524/9783486853483.93Search in Google Scholar
 STALLINGS, ROBERT A.; QUARANTELLI, ENRICO L. EL: Emergent Citizen Groups and Emergency Management. In: Public Administration Review Bd. 45 (1985), Nr. Special Issue, S. 93–100 — ISBN 00333352.10.2307/3135003Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston