Using active data in a UIMS

Henry, Tyson R.; Hudson, Scott E.

doi:10.1145/62402.62429

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their initial success in spreadsheets and attribute grammars [Knuth 1968] has inspired researchers to use them as tools in a variety of applications, including graphical interfaces [Barth 1986;Myers 1990a;Myers et al 1990Myers et al , 1997Hill 1993;Hill et al 1994;Hudson and King 1988;Hudson 1993Hudson , 1994Henry and Hudson 1988;Hudson and Smith 1996], programming environments [Demers et al 1981;Reps et al 1983;Hoover 1987Hoover , 1992, and circuit simulations [Alpern et al 1990].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned about one-way, dataflow constraints in the Garnet and Amulet graphical toolkits

Zanden

Halterman

Myers

et al. 2001

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One-way, dataflow constraints are commonly used in graphical interface toolkits, programming environments, and circuit applications. Previous papers on dataflow constraints have focused on the design and implementation of individual algorithms. In contrast, this article focuses on the lessons we have learned from a decade of implementing competing algorithms in the Garnet and Amulet graphical interface toolkits. These lessons reveal the design and implementation tradeoffs for different one-way, constraint satisfaction algorithms. The most important lessons we have learned are that (1) mark-sweep algorithms are more efficient than topological ordering algorithms; (2) lazy and eager evaluators deliver roughly comparable performance for most applications; and (3) constraint satisfaction algorithms have more than adequate speed, except that the storage required by these algorithms can be problematic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned about one-way, dataflow constraints in the Garnet and Amulet graphical toolkits

Zanden

Halterman

Myers

et al. 2001

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a system that uses procedural attachments [Buneman and Clemons 1979;Henry and Hudson 1988], a watcher module can attach a procedure to any object in which it is interested. When an object is modified, all procedures attached to the object are invoked to notify interested watcher modules of the change.…”

Section: Procedural Attachmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, when a change to a data item is detected, a watcher module's response frequently is to update the values of other data items dependent on the changed item. Constraint systems [Borning 1981;Henry and Hudson 1988;Nelson 1985;Vander Zanden 1991] are specifically tailored to this task. Constraint systems allow a programmer to express declarative relationships between data items that are automatically maintained by the constraint system.…”

Section: Constraint Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanites

Rodham

Olsen

1997

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focal point of many interactive systems is an information artifact being created and manipulated by one or more users through a user interface. The software components of such an interactive system perform their tasks relative to the data structures that represent the information artifact. System components interact with each other by changing these data and responding when relevant changes are made to them by other components. Perhaps the most difficult problem to be solved when building such data-centric systems is the monitoring problem. System components require the ability to watch for and respond to changes made to complex data structures. Previous monitoring approaches are geared toward monitoring single data items rather than entire data structures. This article describes a new monitoring approach called Nanites that is designed to simplify the task of monitoring complex data structures.

show abstract

“…This d oes not allow gestures that spec-UIMS currently under development at the Uniify their target object by means of a feature point versity of Arizona, as well as its predecessor the in the middle of the gesture. While this type of Apogee UIMS [5,71. The toolkit has also been gesture is not as common, it is sometimes useful.…”

Section: Artkit Has Evolved Through Three Major Versionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating gesture and snapping into a user interface toolkit

Henry

Hudson

Newell

1990

Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST '90

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes Artkit -the Arizona Retargetable Toolkit -an extensible object-oriented user interface toolkit.Artkit provides an extensible input model which is designed to support a wider range of interaction techniques than conventional user interface toolkits. In particular the system supports the implementation of interaction objects using dragging, snapping (or gravity fields), and gesture (or handwriting) inputs. Because these techniques are supported directly by the toolkit it is also possible to create interactions that mix these techniques within a single interface or even a single interactor object.

show abstract

Using active data in a UIMS

Cited by 34 publications

References 20 publications

Lessons learned about one-way, dataflow constraints in the Garnet and Amulet graphical toolkits

Lessons learned about one-way, dataflow constraints in the Garnet and Amulet graphical toolkits

Nanites

Integrating gesture and snapping into a user interface toolkit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About