Advertisement

Abstract User Interfaces: A Model and Notation to Support Plasticity in Interactive Systems

  • Kevin A. Schneider
  • James R. Cordy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2220)

Abstract

This paper introduces the Abstract User Interface (AUI) model and notation for specifying abstract interaction in interactive software systems with graphical, direct manipulation user interfaces. The AUI model is aimed at improving the plasticity of an interactive system. An interactive system is considered to be plastic when it is easily adaptable to concrete user interface styles. To support plasticity, an AUI specification defines the interaction between input, output and computation in terms of the abstract elements of the user interface: a relation we refer to as abstract interaction. Concrete characteristics of the user interface, such as events, callbacks and rendering, are deliberately factored out so that the abstract interaction relation can be exposed. Clearly defining the abstract interaction ensures that consistent interaction semantics is maintained independent of changes to the concrete user interface. To demonstrate the AUI concept, a range of user interface styles are presented for a single AUI specification of a drawing tool, and examples of commercial applications are presented.

Keywords

User Interface Interactive System Interaction Technique Graphical Element Mouse Button 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Abrams, C. Phanouriou, A. L. Batongbacal, S. M. Williams and J. E. Shuster. UIML: An Appliance-Independent XML User Interface Language. WWW8, Toronto May 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    F. Bodart, A.-M. Hennebert, J.-M. Leheureux, and J. Vanderdonckt. A Model-Based Approach to Presentation: A Continuum from Task Analysis to Prototype. In Proceedings of 1st Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems DSVIS’94 (Bocca diMagra, Jun 8–10, 1994). F. Paternó (ed.). Eurographics Series, Berlin,1994, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    T. Bray, J. Paoli, and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, eds. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. W3C Recommendation, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    J. Coutaz, L. Nigay and D. Salber. PAC: An Object Oriented Model for Implementing User Interfaces. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, vol. 19, 1987, pages37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    M. Crease, P. Gray and S. Brewster. A Toolkit of Mechanism and Context Independent Widgets. In Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (Workshop 8, ICSE 2000), Limerick, Ireland, 2000, pp. 127–141.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    T. C. N. Graham. Declarative Development of Interactive Systems. Volume 243 of Breichte der GMD. R. Oldenbourg Verlag, July 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    T. C. N. Graham and T. Urnes. Integrating Support for Temporal Media into an Architecture for Graphical User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE97). IEEE Computer Society Press, Boston, USA, May 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    H. R. Hartson, A. C. Siochi and D. Hix. The UAN: A User-Oriented Representation for Direct Manipulation Interface Designs. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1990, 8(3):181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    J. Herstad, D. Van Thanh and S. Kristoffersen. Wireless Markup Language as a Framework for Interaction with Mobile Computing and Communication Devices. In C.W. Johnson (ed.) Proceedings of the First Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices, Glasgow, Scotland, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    R. D. Hill. The Abstraction-Link-View Paradigm: Using Constraints to Connect User Interfaces to Applications. In Human Factors in Computing Systems (Monterey, California, USA), 1992, pages 335–342.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    P. Hudak, S. P. Jones, P. Wadler, B. Boutel, J. Fairbairn, J. Fasel, M.M. Guzman, K. Hammond, J. Hughes, T. Johnsson, D. Kieburtz, R. Nikhil, W. Partain and J. Peterson. Report on the Programming Language Haskell. Technical Report, YaleUniversity, USA, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    M. P. Jones. An Introduction to Gofer. Functional programming environment, Yale University, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    B. A. Myers. A New Model for Handling Input. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1990, 8(3):289–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    G. E. Pfa., editor. User Interface Management Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, November 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    D. Thevenin and J. Coutaz. Plasticity of User Interfaces: Framework and Research Agenda. In M.A. Sasse and C.W. Johnson (eds.) Proceedings of INTERACT’ 99. (IFIP TC.13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 30th August-3rd September 1999, inburgh, UK), Technical Sessions, 1999, pages 110–117.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    D. A. Turner. Miranda: A non-strict functional language with polymorphic types. In Proceedings IFIP International Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (Nancy, France), 1985, pages 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    The UIMS Tool Developers Workshop. A Metamodel for the Runtime Architecture of an Interactive System. SIGCHI Bulletin. Volume 24, Number 1, 1992, pages 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin A. Schneider
    • 1
  • James R. Cordy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewanCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Information ScienceQueen’s UniversityOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations