Towards Uniformed Task Models in a Model-Based Approach

  • Quentin Limbourg
  • Costin Pribeanu
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2220)


Multiple versions and expressions of task models used in user interface design, speci.cation, and veri.cation of interactive systems have led to an ontological problem of identifying and understanding concepts which are similar or di.erent across models. This variety raises a particular problem in model-based approaches for designing user interfaces as di.erent task models, possibly with di.erent vocabularies, di.erent formalisms, di.erent concepts are exploited: no software tool is able today to accommodate any task models as input for a user-centred design process. DOLPHIN is a software architecture that attempts to solve this problem by introducing uniform task models. A series of representative task models was .rst selected. The meta-models of these individual task models were then designed and merged into a uniformed task meta-model. Semantic mapping rules between individual task meta-models and the uniformed task meta-model allow DOLPHIN to read and understand any potential task model towards its exploitation in a model-based approach.


Task Analysis Task Model Semantic Mapping Task Decomposition Elementary Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Annett and K. Duncan. Task analysis and training design. Occupational Psychology,41:211–227, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. K. Baumeister, B. E. John, and M. D. Byrne. A comparison of tools for buildingGOMS models tools for design. In Proc. Of ACM Conf. On Human Factors inComputing Systems CHI’2000, pages 502–509, New York, 2000. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bomsdorf and G. Swillius. From task to dialogue: Task based user interfacedesign. SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(4):40–42, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.K. Card, T.P. Moran, and A. Newell. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Clark. XSL: Transformations (XSLT). version 1.0 W3C recommendation. Technicalreport, W3C, 1999.
  6. 6.
    D. Diaper. Task analysis for knowledge descriptions (TAKD): The method andexamples. InD. Diaper, editor, Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction,pages 108–159. Ellis-Horwood, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Dittmar. More precise descriptions of temporal relations within task models.InP. Pallanque and F. Paternó, editors, Proc. of the 7th Int. Workshop on Design,Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems DSV-IS’00 (Limerick, 5-6June 2000), volume 1946 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 151–158,Berlin, 2000. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Englebert and J-L Hainaut. GRASYLA: Modelling case tools GUIs in metacases.InJ. Vanderdonckt, editor, Computer-Aided Design II. Proc. Of the 3rdConference on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces. CADUI’99 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 21–23 October 1999), pages 217–244, Doordrecht, 1999. Kluwer Academics.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. E. John and D. E. Kieras. The GOMS family of user interfaces analysis techniques:Comparison and contrasts. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,3(4):320–351, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Johnson. Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology, Task Analysis and SoftwareEngineering. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Johnson and H. Johnson. Knowledge analysis of task: Task analysis and speci.cation for human-computer systems. InA. Downton, editor, Engineering theHuman-Computer Interface, pages 119–144. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Johnson, P. Markopoulos, and H. Johnson. Task knowledge structures: A specification of user task models and interaction dialogues. In Proc. Of Task Analysis in Human-Computer Interaction, 11th Int. Workshop on Informatics and Psychology(Schraeding, Austria, June 9–11), 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Kaptelinin and B. Nardi. Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications.ACM Press (New York), 2000. CHI’2000 Tutorial Notes vol. 5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Kirwan and L. K. Ainsworth. A Guide to Task Analysis. Taylor and Francis,London, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Y. Lim and J. Long. The MUSE Method Pfor Usability Engineering. CambridgeSeries on Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge(UK), 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Q. Limbourg, C. Pribeanu, and J. Vanderdonckt. Uniforming of task models in amodel-based approach. Technical Report BCHI-2001-4, Université Catholique deLouvain, 2001. Available on request.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Paternó. Model-Based-Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications.Springer-Velag, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Puerta and J. Eisenstein. XIML: Towards a universal user interface markuplanguage. Submitted for publication, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Scapin and C. Pierret-Golbreich. Towards a method for task description: MAD.In L. Berlinguet and D. Berthelette, editors, Proc. Of the Conf. Work with DisplayUnits WWU’89, pages 27–34, Amsterdam, 1989. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J-C Tarby and M-F Barthet. The DIANE+ method. In J. Vanderdonckt, editor,Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop onComputer-Aided Design of User Interfaces CADUI’96 (Namur, 5–7 June 1996),pages 95–119, Namur, 1996. Presses Universitaires de Namur.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. J. Tauber. ETAG: Extended task action grammar. a language for the description of the user’s task language. InD. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, and B. Shackel, editors, Proc. of the 3rd IFIP TC 13 Conf. On Human Computer InteractionInteract’ 90 (Cambridge, 27–31 August 1990), pages 163–168, Amsterdam,1990. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. C. van der Veer, B. F. Van der Lenting, and B. A. J. Bergevoet. GTA: Groupwaretask analysis-modelling complexity. Acta Psychologica, 91:297–322, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. van Welie, C.G. van der Veer, and A. Eliens. An ontology for task worldmodels. In Proc.of the 5th Int. Workshop on Design, Specification and Verificationof Interactive Systems DSV-IS’98 (Abingdon, 3–5 June 1998), pages 57–70, Vienna,1998. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quentin Limbourg
    • 1
  • Costin Pribeanu
    • 2
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
    • 1
  1. 1.Université catholique de LouvainInstitut d’Administration et de GestionLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.National Institute for Research and Development in InformaticsBucharest

Personalised recommendations