Representations for an iterative resource-based design approach

Abstract

This paper describes how the HOPS notation can be used to support Human Centered Design. It discusses the role of the notation in providing multiple design viewpoints. It demonstrates how the HOPS tool can be used to animate these viewpoints. Finally, HOPS is used to specify how the system provides information resources for user action. This approach to specifying plausible user behavior is contrasted with a task based approach. The HOPS based design techniques are illustrated through a process control example.

A constructive approach for design space exploration

“…Third, formal specifications of interactive devices 3 can be reflected against models of the application context (e.g. by model checking as in [8] or by model animation as in [12]). Formal models are also central in the suggested approach where they play different roles (Q-models, O-models, C-models).…”

“…is a specification formalism with high-level concepts for describing interaction from different viewpoints and at different levels of abstraction [12]. In HOPS, systems are considered as sets of interacting sub-systems which can exist independently.…”

“…Existing artifacts for Design Rationale, for example, do not relate solution construction and argumentation sufficiently [17]. In contrast, the mappings between task models, abstract user interface models, and implementations in model-based design approaches are often too rigid to enable reflection of an interactive application with respect to different usage situations [10], [12] or to support ad hoc im-1 Figure 1. Positioning of the proposed approach.…”

“…It is then instantiated with QOC diagrams (Questions, Options, and Criteria) [21], HOPS models (Higher Order Processes Specifications) [12], and Java implementations. HOPS models are used to formalize structural and behavioral aspects of design ideas and constraints that are documented in a QOC diagram.…”

A semi-formal framework for describing interaction design spaces

“…Design representations for multi-disciplinary work need to support the creation of a shared understanding among all collaborators 1 , but at the same time they have to serve the local needs of specialised sub-teams. One way to increase each others' receptivity is to develop methods that 'couple' models and representations from different approaches such as task models and UI models in model-based de-sign [6,24] or formal modeling and prototyping [9]. However, the co-evolution of different types of design representations that is essential to interleave the activities of heterogeneous design sub-teams in an effective way is still poorly understood [10].…”