Facilitating the exploration of interface design alternatives

Szekely, Pedro; Luo, Ping; Neches, Robert

doi:10.1145/142750.142912

Cited by 75 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HUMANOID [46] belongs to the family of interface design tools centered around the notion of deriving the user interface from a high-level specification of the semantics of the application. In HUMANOID, such a high-level semantic description is the starting point for the UI generation process.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Prototyping of User Interfaces Based on UML Scenarios

Elkoutbi¹,

Khriss

Keller³

2006

Autom Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. User interface (UI) prototyping and scenario engineering have become popular techniques. Yet, the transition from scenario to formal specifications and the generation of UI code is still ill-defined and essentially a manual task, and the two techniques lack integration in the overall requirements engineering process. In this paper, we suggest an approach for requirements engineering that generates a user interface prototype from scenarios and yields a formal specification of the application. Scenarios are acquired in the form of collaboration diagrams as defined by the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and are enriched with user interface (UI) information. These diagrams are automatically transformed into UML Statechart specifications of the UI objects involved. From the set of obtained specifications, a UI prototype is generated that is embedded in a UI builder environment for further refinement. Based on end user feedback, the collaboration diagrams and the UI prototype may be iteratively refined, and the result of the overall process is a specification consisting of the Statechart diagrams of all the objects involved, together with the generated and refined prototype of the UI. The algorithms underlying this process have been implemented and exercised on a number of examples.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Prototyping of User Interfaces Based on UML Scenarios

Elkoutbi¹,

Khriss

Keller³

2006

Autom Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UIDE [Foley et al 1991] and HUMANOID [Szekely et al 1992] focus on automatic UI generation for allowing designers to experiment with different design possibilities before producing the final user interface. TADEUS [Elwert and Schlungbaum 1995] provides a methodology with a supporting environment for generating graphical UIs from a model representing the interactive system.…”

Section: First and Second Generation Mbuid Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Model-Driven User Interface Development Systems

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive user interfaces (UIs) were introduced to address some of the usability problems that plague many software applications. Model-driven engineering formed the basis for most of the systems targeting the development of such UIs. An overview of these systems is presented and a set of criteria is established to evaluate the strengths and shortcomings of the state-of-the-art, which is categorized under architectures, techniques, and tools. A summary of the evaluation is presented in tables that visually illustrate the fulfillment of each criterion by each system. The evaluation identified several gaps in the existing art and highlighted the areas of promising improvement. The user interface (UI) layer is considered one of the key components of software applications since it connects their end-users to the functionality. Well-engineered and robust software applications could eventually fail to be adopted due to a weak UI layer. Some user interface development techniques such as: universal design [Mace et al. 1990], inclusive design [Keates et al. 2000], and design for all [Stephanidis 1997] promote the concept of making one UI design fit as many people as possible. Yet, a UI is not independent from its context-of-use, which is defined in terms of the user, platform, and environment [Calvary et al. 2003]. The "one design fits all" approach is unable to accommodate all the cases of variability in the context-of-use, in many cases leading to a diminished user experience. Building multiple UIs for the same functionality due to context variability is difficult since the scope of variability cannot be completely known at design-time and there is a high cost incurred by manually developing multiple versions of the UI. Adaptive UIs have been promoted as a solution for context variability due to their ability to automatically adapt to the context-of-use at runtime. User interfaces capable of adapting to their context-of-use are also referred to as multi-context or multi-target [Fonseca 2010]. A key goal behind adaptive UIs is plasticity denoting a UI's ability to preserve its usability across multiple contexts-of-use [Coutaz 2010]. Norcio and Stanley [1989] consider that the idea of an adaptive UI is straightforward since it simply means that: "The interface should adapt to the user; rather than the user adapting to the system" (p. 399) but they note that in spite of the simplicity of the definition, there are some difficult and complex problems relating to adaptive UIs. In our study of the literature, we noticed that some of these problems are technical and are related to devising systems that can support the development of adaptive UIs, while others are related to human factors such as the end-user acceptance of these UIs. Realizing the abstract properties illustrated in Fig. 1, could help in handling some of the technical and human problems related to adaptive UIs. Salehie and Tahvildari [2009] present a hierarchy of adaptability properties for software systems, referred to as self-* properties. This hierarchy demon...

show abstract

“…References Local ADEPT [27,23,52] Queen Mary and Westfield College, UK AME [28] Fachhochschule Augsburg, Germany FUSE [38,39,25] Technische Universität München, Germany GENIUS [21] University of Stuttgart, Germany HUMANOID [44,46,26 This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes MB-UIDE's evolution and presents research efforts.…”

Section: Mb-uidementioning

confidence: 99%

User Interface Declarative Models and Development Environments: A Survey

Silva

2001

Interactive Systems Design, Specification, and Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-Based User Interface Development Environments (MB-UIDEs) provide a context within which user interface declarative models can be constructed and related, as part of the user interface design process. This paper provides a review of MB-UIDE technologies. A framework for describing the elements of a MB-UIDE is presented. A representative collection of 14 MB-UIDEs are selected, described in terms of the framework, compared and analysed from the information available in the literature. The framework can be used as an introduction to the MB-UIDE technology since it relates and provides a description for the terms used in MB-UIDE papers.

show abstract

Facilitating the exploration of interface design alternatives

Cited by 75 publications

References 20 publications

Automated Prototyping of User Interfaces Based on UML Scenarios

Automated Prototyping of User Interfaces Based on UML Scenarios

Adaptive Model-Driven User Interface Development Systems

User Interface Declarative Models and Development Environments: A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About