XUAN: Enhancing UAN to Capture Temporal Relationships among Actions

Gray, Phil; England, David; McGowan, S.; Cockton, Gilbert; Draper, Steve; Weir, George R. S.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511600821.023

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Les besoins utilisateur sont exprimés par un ensemble de tâches qui permettent d'atteindre un but donné à partir d'un état initial. En voici quelques exemples : MAD [Scapin and Pierret-Golbreich 1990;Scapin and Pierret-Golbreich 1989], XUAN [Gray et al 1994], CTT [Paternò 2001;Paternò et al 2001] et K-MAD [Lucquiaud 2005;Baron et al 2006].…”

Section: Spécification / Conceptionunclassified

Vérification et validation formelles de systèmes interactifs fondées sur la preuve : application aux systèmes Multi-Modaux

Aït‐Ameur¹,

Aït-Sadoune²,

Baron³

et al. 2014

Journal d'Interaction Personne-Système

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the formal validation and verification of multi-modal human computer interfaces. It describes part of the obtained results of the French RNRT VERBATIM project whose purpose is the Multimodal Interfaces BIformal Verification and Test Automation. This project focuses on the application of a formal technique, namely the event B method. This approach is based on a proof technique and therefore it does not suffer from the state number explosion problem occurring in classical model checking. We outline the capability of this technique to support the design of multi-modal human computer interfaces, in particular, the capability to support the expression and the verification of properties issued from the CARE family. The proposed approach uses notations and semi-formal techniques issued from the HCI design area. We apply our approach on a case study called "CLIPS Yellow Pages".

show abstract

Section: Spécification / Conceptionunclassified

Vérification et validation formelles de systèmes interactifs fondées sur la preuve : application aux systèmes Multi-Modaux

Aït‐Ameur¹,

Aït-Sadoune²,

Baron³

et al. 2014

Journal d'Interaction Personne-Système

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The operation of the system is organized into user tasks and the interface software is supposed to recognize sequences of user actions as a task. UAN includes support for specifying parallelism and other time dependencies [7,11], and therefore, is better suited for specifying direct manipulation. The problem with the taskdescription strategy is that users don't always do exactly what the task description states.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward more understandable user interface specifications

Carr

1996

Eurographics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many different methods have been used to specify user interfaces: algebraic specification, grammars, task description languages, transition diagrams with and without extensions, rule-based systems, and by demonstration. However, none of these methods has been widely adopted. Current user interfaces are still built by writing a program, perhaps with the aid of a UIMS. There are two principal reasons for this. First, specification languages are difficult to use. Reading a specification and understanding its exact meaning is very difficult. Writing a correct specification is even more difficult. Second, most specification languages are not executable. This means that after the user interface programmer makes the effort to write a specification, the user interface must still be coded. As a consequence, most programmers have little incentive to do a specification. A pilot study into the comprehensibility of specifications is described. The results of this study suggest that user interface specifications are difficult to interpret manually. A possible solution to this problem, specification animation, is also described.Over the years a number of methods have been used to specify user interfaces. These include algebraic specifications, grammar-based languages, transition diagrams (including extensions like Petri-nets and statecharts), rule-based systems, and specification by demonstration.Algebraic specification of window systems was introduced by Guttag and Horning [8]. They proposed the design of a windowing system based on axiomatic specification of abstract data types. This method permits formally proving properties of the user interface. However, algebraic specifications have serious drawbacks. They are very difficult to read and require considerable time and training to understand. They are even more difficult to write. Specifically, the declarative nature of an algebraic specification provides little support for the sequential nature of user interface dialogs. This makes it difficult to construct or follow sequences of user actions, and therefore, makes algebraic specification unsuited for communicating interface behavior.

show abstract

“…A drawback of this model is its approach to interactions by regarding the system only, without taking into account the other participant, the human being. This problem was overcome in the XUAN (eXtended User Action Notification) model (Gray et al, 1994), which equally treats both the system and the user. XUAN model treats the user and the system in terms of their visible, in case of the user articulated, internal actions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%