It is not only the ship's UI that lacks review in the post-mortem analysis, but also the process that lead to it. "Conspicuously absent from their recommendati

It is not only the ship's UI that lacks review in the post-mortem analysis, but also the process that lead to it. "Conspicuously absent from their recommendations was any discussion about user interface design." _Why_ did the NTSB not review the user interface? What is their motivation, and the forces that influence their actions? Is the NTSB sufficiently staffed with experts on user interfaces? If not, why not? > These specifications come from a document written in 1988. Is the process to update Standard F1166 sufficient? (Probably not.) Why? Why is a document that is clearly outdated used to guide UI design in a newly designed ship? What are the incentives and forces that lead to this outdated standard being used, and no update fixing it? Related: CAST handbook, http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/CAST-Handbook.pdf