Task Modelling for Context-Sensitive User Interfaces

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


With the explosion of devices, computing platforms, contextual conditions, user interfaces become more confronted to a need to be adapted to multiple configurations of the context of use. In the past, many techniques were developed to perform a task analysis for obtaining a single user interface that is adapted for a single context of use. As this user interface may become unusable for other contexts of use, there emerges a need for modelling tasks which can be supported in multiple contexts of use, considering multiple combinations of the contextual conditions. For this purpose, the concept of unit task is exploited to identify a point where traditional task models can break into two parts: a context-insensitive part and a context-sensitive part. A widespread task model notation is then used to examine, discuss, and criticise possible configurations for modelling a context-sensitive task as a whole. One particular form is selected that attempts to achieve a clear separation of concern between the context-insensitive part, the context-sensitive part, and a new decision tree which branches to context-sensitive tasks, depending on contextual conditions. The questions of factoring out possible elements that are common across multiple contexts of use and representation of the resulting task model are discussed.


Decision Tree Contextual Condition Task Model Computing Platform Basic 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.
    G.G. Abowd and A.D. Key. Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. Technical Report Research report 1999-22, Georgia University of Technology, 1999. Accessible at
  2. 2.
    M. Abrams, C. Phanouriou, A.L. Batongbacal, S. Williams, and J. Shuster. UIML: An appliance-independent XML user interface language. In A. Mendelzon, editor,Proceedings of 8th International World-Wide Web Conference WWW’8 (Toronto, May 11–14, 1999), Amsterdam, 1999. Elsevier Science Publishers. Accessible at
  3. 3.
    B. Bomsdorf and G. Swillius. From task to dialogue: Task based user interface design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(4):40–42, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Calvary, J. Coutaz, and D. Thevenin. A unifying reference framework for the development of plastic user interfaces. In Proceedings of IFIP WG 2.7 Conference on Engineering the User Interface EHCI’2001 Toronto, May 11–13, 2001)., London, 2001. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.K. Card, T.P. Moran, and A. Newell. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Eisenstein, J. Vanderdonckt, and A. Puerta. Adapting to mobile contexts with user-interface modeling. In Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications WCSMA’2000(Monterey, December 7–8, 2000)., pages 83–92, Los Alamitos, 2000. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Eisenstein, J. Vanderdonckt, and A. Puerta. Applying model-based techniques to the development of user interfaces for mobile computers. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces IUI’2001(Albuquerque, January 11–13, 2001), pages 69–76, New York, 2001. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Johnson. Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology, Task Analysis and Software Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Kaptelinin and B. Nardi. Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications. ACM Press (New York), 2000. CHI’2000 Tutorial Notes vol. 5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Myers, S. Hudson, and R. Pausch. Past, present, future of user interface tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7:3–28, 1. Accessible at
  11. 11.
    F. Paternò. Model-Based-Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Paternò, C. Mancini, and S. Meniconi. ConcurTaskTree: A diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In S. Howard, J. Hammond, and G. Lindgaard, editors, Proceedings of IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Interact’97 (Sydney, July 14–18, 1997), pages 362–369, Boston, 1997. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Paternó, C. Santoro, and S. Tahmassebi. Formal model for cooperative tasks: Concepts and an application for en-route air trafic control. In P. Markopoulos and P. Johnson, editors, Proc. Of 5th Int. Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Intractive Systems DSV-IS’ 98 (Abingdon, June 3-5 1998), pages 71–86, Vienna, 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Puerta and J. Eisenstein. A representational basis for user interface transformations. In Ch. Wiecha and P. Szekely, editors, Proceedings of CHI’2001 Workshop“Transforming the UI for Anyone, Anywhere-Enabling an Increased Variety of Users, Devices, and Tasks Through Interface Transformations” (Seattle, April 1–2,2001), New York, 2001. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Savidis, D. Akoumianakis, and C. Stephanidis. The Unified User Interface Design Method, chapter 21, pages 417–440. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Szekely, P. Sukaviriya, J. Castells, Muthukumarasamy, and E. Salcher. Declarative interface models for user interface construction tools: The MASTERMINDapproach. In Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, pages 120–150. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. J. Tauber. ETAG: Extended task action grammar. a language for the description of the user’s task language. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, and B. Shackel, editors, Proc. of the 3rd IFIP TC 13 Conf. On Human Computer Interaction Interact’ 90(Cambridge, 27-31 August 1990), pages 163–168, Amsterdam, 1990. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Thevenin and J. Coutaz. Plasticity of user interfaces: Framework and research agenda. In A. Sasse and C.W. Johnson, editors, Proceedings of 7th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Interact’99(Edinburgh, August 30–September 3, 1999), pages 110–117, London, 1999. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. van Welie, C.G. van der Veer, and A. Eliens. An ontology for task world models. In Proc.of the 5th Int. Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of 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

  • Costin Pribeanu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Quentin Limbourg
    • 1
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut d’Administration et de GestionUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.National Institute for Research and Development in InformaticsBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations