Abstract
The 1997 interface study observed controls that moved consistently but produced uncertain use. Its conclusion was deliberately limited: mechanical movement is necessary to an actuation, but it is not the whole of the response.
Interpretation
The paper introduced response recognition as an observation distinct from force, travel and repeatability. The activation tradition continued to prioritize component behavior. The confidence tradition argued that an ordinary control must also make its result available to perception and learned use. The Interface Evaluation Board retained both readings in the first OAI issue.
Subsequent influence
MBI-P-97 shaped the 1998 OAI, the 2003 force-consistency revision and the 2012 learned-familiarity revision. Current OAI language treats familiarity as an engineering quality without treating mechanical consistency as secondary.
Related publications
Continue by concept
Printable web edition. A matching PDF is available: download MBI-P-97.pdf.