Evaluation of Model-Based User Interface Development Approaches

Engel, Jürgen; Herdin, Christian; Märtin, Christian

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_28

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the complete set of papers, we searched for surveys on MB-UIDE. We found the following 7 surveys summarized in : 4 as direct result of the query ( (Akiki, Bandara, & Yu, 2015), (Engel et al, 2014), (Griffiths et al, 2001) and)); and 3 as a result of the snowballing step ( (Gomaa et al, 2005), (Schlungbaum, 1996) and (Vi Tran, Vanderdonckt, Kolp, & Wautelet, 2010)). Those papers describe the most prominent MB-UIDE approaches.…”

Section: Reporting the Slrmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…We collected the criteria by analysing the papers obtained from the SLR that give an explicit criteria-based comparison of MB-UIDEs. Authors of previous surveys propose criteria for evaluating MB-UIDEs from the perspective of the richness of the models used by the tools , the coverage of different levels of abstraction by the approaches (Engel et al, 2014), the extent and quality of support the tools offer to the UI developers for the creation and manipulation of models, and the generation of UI code (Griffiths et al, 2001), (Akiki et al, 2015). Only the criteria that satisfy the following constraints were included: -having been referenced as an important feature for MB-UIDEs by relevant authors in the field, -being relevant for the purpose of determining to what extent the MB-UIDEs adhere to major principles of MDD.…”

Section: Figure 2 Methodology To Determine Criteria To Use For Mb-uide Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As can be seen in this table, older evaluations are obviously missing more recent approaches. But even (Engel et al, 2014) and (Akiki et al, 2015), which are the most recent evaluations, are nevertheless incomplete in terms of approaches covered: they do not cover older evaluations and -as will be explained in section 4-in the total set of papers we found another 11 (recent) approaches that are missing from their analysis as well.…”

Section: Reporting the Slrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exact search string in Scopus was: ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "model-based user interface" OR "model-driven user interface" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( design OR development or generation) ) AND ( EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"MEDI OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA," DENT OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA," EART OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA," VETE OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"MEDI OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA," CENG" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"EART" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"AGRI" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"ARTS" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"BIOC" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"SOCI" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"BUSI" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"DECI" ) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA,"ECON OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA," PHAR" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"MATE" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"ENVI" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"ENGI" ) OR EXCLUDE(SUBJAREA,"MULT OR EXCLUDE SUBJAREA " ) ). In order to assess the quality of the query, we checked that the studies we already knew to be relevant for our search (such as , (Engel, Herdin, & Märtin, 2014)), appeared in the results in order to ensure that this search process was able to find these papers.…”

Section: Planning the Slrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Vi Presents an analysis of the models used by the MB-UIDEs as well as a description of their tools and the languages used to describe the generated UI. (Engel et al, 2014) Presents a brief description of some MB-UIDEs and an analysis of the models they use. This survey also shows the coverage of the Cameleon Reference Framework (CRF) abstraction levels and the notations used by each of the approaches.…”

Section: Reporting the Slrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating user interface generation approaches: model-based versus model-driven development

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in software design possibilities have led to a growing interest in the study of User Interfaces (UIs). Many Model-Based User Interface Development Environments (MB-UIDEs) have been proposed to deal with the generation of the UIs (semi) automatically by using models with different levels of abstraction. Often, this generation is limited to the UI-part of an application. However, achieving true model-driven development (MDD) requires the co-development of application and user interface and hence needs to go a step further. This paper analyzes a large set of existing MB-UIDEs and evaluates, from a critical perspective, to what extent they can be considered full MDD environments and adequately addressing the co-design of UI and application. A robust assessment framework is defined and applied for this purpose. Following the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham & Charters in 2007, we performed a systematic literature review. A total of 82 papers were examined. Based on these papers, an assessment framework containing 10 criteria with specific metrics to evaluate MB-UIDEs was defined and 29 different environments were evaluated following these criteria. The evaluation shows that, although a strong progress has being achieved over the last years, the existing environments do not yet fully exploit the benefits and potentialities of MDD, nor do they adequately integrate UI design with application logic design and generation. Further research needs to be done to support the model-driven development of user interfaces and the co-design of the underlying application. The difficulty of use of the existing MB-UIDEs, the lack of UI design flexibility, and the lack of complete and integrated development support, are the main research gaps that need to be addressed.

show abstract

Section: Reporting the Slrmentioning

confidence: 95%