# Collaborative System Usability in Spaceflight Analog Environments through Remote Observations
## 2 Background  
### Remote Observations through Conversation Analysis  
Usability is defined as how easy and feasible it is to use an interface to accomplish tasks [1]. The think-aloud protocol for testing usability is one of the most widely used methods in HCI design, allowing for the assessment of a user's thought processes and decisions in real time [2]. Participants are required to verbalize their thoughts while using the system under evaluation. This method's popularity stems from its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility. However, like all usability research techniques, the think-aloud protocol is not without drawbacks. In the context of crewed space missions, limitations of think-aloud evaluation for software become particularly pronounced. The necessity for verbal collaboration, unnatural conditions created by the think-aloud methodology, the likelihood of participants opting for selected verbalizations instead of the preferred stream-of-consciousness, and potential biases all contribute to limiting the effectiveness of the think-aloud protocol. These constraints often make its application in a space environment less than ideal, prompting the exploration of alternative methods. Recent studies have found that think-aloud protocols significantly benefit from additional evaluation in analog contexts. For example, [PERSON] et al. [3] paired think-aloud testing with a novel, near-live simulation approach. Their user population, primary care providers relying on clinical decision support tools, interacted with simulated patients to provide necessary care. Transcripts and behavioral analyses from these sessions showed where, when, and how providers accessed the support tool to efficiently provide the necessary services; they also revealed workflows that conventional think-aloud testing never caught. [PERSON] and colleagues [4] assessed the usability of a patient-care guide by coupling think-aloud testing with mock patient discussions. Post hoc interviews and transcript content analyses showed that accessing the guide in \"practice\" was hindered by several obstacles. From these conclusions, the authors made significant revisions to the guide to make it easier for providers to find relevant information. Testing in analogous settings emerges as a valuable strategy in usability science, especially for tools used during interpersonal interactions and complex workflows. A recent framework presented by [PERSON] [5] outlines a methodology for studying usability by coupling conversation analysis with traditional approaches, such as user experience (UX) questionnaires. This framework asserts that conversation analysis, the study of social interactions through audio and/or video data, can effectively validate the usability of collaborative technologies in complex, social environments. Such environments often carry an intricate ecology of human-human and human-computer interactions that must be characterized with a targeted data collection approach. For example, [PERSON] [6] uncovered several issues associated with novel medical software that became only evident when considering users' (i.e., healthcare employees) social interactions. Their approach used focus group interviews, individual interviews, and naturalistic patient observations over 24 months to inform the design and development of patient-oriented technologies for years to come. Other empirical studies have successfully characterized computer-supported cooperative work specifically using the conversation analysis method in many fields, including public transportation coordination [7] and telemedicine [8]. As a proposed cornerstone of this framework, voice recordings in particular [9; 10; 11] have garnered much recent attention as promising enhancements to usability evaluation. Work by [PERSON] and colleagues [12] suggests that trust in autonomous agents can be inferred from lexical and acoustic features in speech. Similarly, [PERSON] et al.