## 4 Results
### Operators' Roles and Responsibilities during the Forming Process  
During the interviews, operator 1 was reported to be responsible for programming the robot and controlling the speed and direction of the robot, which also involves the supervision of safety regulations and the access to the emergency shut-off of the robot. Operator 2 was reported to be responsible for the definition of the control data, as well as the physical forming of the work piece and its documentation for further process development. In addition, both operators shared the task of checking the trajectory of the machine tool with the overall goal of reaching the desired target geometry of the work piece. Operator 3 was reported to act as a \"jumper\", meaning that operator 3 was able to take over the tasks of the other two operators when required. Operator 3 acted together with operator 2 when fixating the work piece into the clamping device and resetting the clamping device. Moreover, operator 3 was responsible for the overall evaluation of the forming process and their subsequent consequences regarding the research project. An overview of the roles and responsibilities of the three operators is shown in Table 1.  
Gaze data revealed differences and commonalities regarding the information search behavior of operator 1 and 2 over the entire forming process (see Figure 4). For instance, both operators directed their focus mostly towards the clamping device (31.0% and 22.9% of all relevant fixations). However, operator 1 looked more to the machine tool (27.4% of all relevant fixations) than to the work piece (15.1% of all relevant fixations), whereas operator 2 attended more to the work piece (20.4% of all relevant fixations) than to the machine tool (19.4% of all relevant fixations). However, it has to be noted that differences between the machine tool and the work piece were not as pronounced with operator 2 (difference of about 1%) as they were with operator 1 (difference of about 12%). This has to be attributed to the fact that the forming zone during the forming operation was located between the rolls and adjacent sheet areas. Operator 1 also looked more to the robot (3.7% of all relevant fixations) compared to operator 2 (2.1% of all relevant fixations). Further, only operator 1 attended to the control panel (6.6% of all relevant fixations). In contrast, only operator 2 focused on devices needed for process documentation (1.2% of all relevant fixations). The gaze data were in line with the reported roles and responsibilities based on the interviews (see Table 1). Hence, as operator 1 was responsible for controlling the speed and trajectory of the robot, which also included the supervision of safety regulations, it was necessary to understand and predict the path of the robot and the attached machine tool. As the machine tool worked along the work piece, operator 1 mainly looked to the work piece, anticipating the course of the machine tool/robot (representing individual situation awareness). Thus, operator 1 integrated all relevant information from the control panel and machine behavior, resulting in glances to the machine tool and control panel (representing individual expertise). As operator 2 was responsible for the physical forming of the work piece and documentation purposes, they especially paid attention to the areas where forces were induced from the machine tool into the work piece in order to reach its target geometry. Therefore, operator 2 anticipated the physical forming of the work piece (representing individual situation awareness) and the integrated relevant information of the material, machine tool, and applied forces (representing individual expertise). Moreover, as operators 1 and 2 shared the task of reaching a target geometry of the work piece in high quality, they looked to the work piece periodically, representing the (cognitive) team processes of operators 1 and 2.