A Small Knowledge-Based System for Selecting Interaction Styles

  • Jean Vanderdonckt
Conference paper


SDISelect consists of a small knowledge-based system teaching and assisting designers of interactive applications in selecting appropriate interaction styles for a particular context of use. As any other tool for working with guidelines, five development milestones have been browsed. Guidelines for selecting interaction styles have been captured in a knowledge-base system as selections among an available set of possible interaction styles, a set of parameters characterizing the context of use, questions to provide the parameters’ values, and selection rules. Each rule selects a candidate interaction style candidate according to values assigned to parameters of the context of use according to a rule-based language, which basically consists of a first-order predicate logic formula. The values of these parameters are either stored or prompted to the designer through questions to form a final set of possible interaction styles.


Virtual Reality Production Rule Design Option Interaction Technique Graphic Interaction 
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.
    Arens, Y., Miller, L., Sondheimer, N.: Presentation Design Using an Integrated Knowledge Base. Chapter 1. In Sullivan, J.W., Tyler, S.W. (eds.). Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM Press, New York (1991) 241-258Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banks, W.W., Gilmore, W.E., Blackman, H.S., Gertman, D.I.: Human Engineering Design Considerations for Cathode Ray Tube-Generated Displays. Vol. Ii. Document CR3003/EGG-2230. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho (July 1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beshers, C.M., Feiner, S.K.: SCOPE: automated generation of graphical interfaces. In Proc. of ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology UIST’89 (Williamsburg, November 13-15, 1989). ACM Press, New York (1989) 76-85Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bleser, T.W., Sibert, J.: TOTO: A Tool for Selecting Interaction Techniques Interaction Techniques. In Proc. of ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology UIST’90 (Snowbird, 3-5 October, 1990). ACM Press, New York (1990) 135-142Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bono, G., Ficorelli, P.: Natural Language Restatement of Queries Expressed in a Graphi-cal Language. In Pemul, G., Jjoa, A.M. (eds.): Proc. of 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach (Karlsruhe, October 7-9, 1992). Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 645. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1992) 357-373Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, C.M.: Human-Computer Interface Design Guidelines. Ablex Publishing Corpo- ration, Berkeley (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cristiano, L.: Methodology for Comparative Selection of Informative Database Interface Styles. SIGCHI Bulletin. Vol. 21, No. 1 (July 1989) 29-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Draper, S.W.: Interface Styles. (May 12, 1996). Accessible at
  9. 9.
    Dumas, J.: Designing User Interfaces for Software. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eberleh, E., Korfmacher, W., Streitz, N.A.: Thinking or Acting? Mental Workload and Subjective Preferences for a Command Code and a Direct Manipulation Interaction Style. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol.4 No. 2 (1992) 105-122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaines, B.: The Technology of Interaction Dialogue Programming Rules. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. Vol. 14 (1981) 13-150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchins, E., Hollan, J.D., Norman, D.A.: Direct Manipulation Interfaces. In Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User Centered Design-New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale (1986) 87-124.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jarke, M., Vassiliou, Y.: A Framework for Choosing a Database Query Language. ACM Computing Surveys. Vol. 17, No. 3 (September 1985) 313-370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo, P.: MIDAS: A Model-Based Approach to Managing Conceptual Design of User Interface Software. In Paternó, F. (ed.). Proceedings of 1S` Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, Verification of Interactive Systems DSV-IS’94 (Carrara, June 8-10 1994), Focus on Computer Graphics Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1995) 129-147Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rich, E.: Stereotype and User Modeling. In: Kobsa, A., Wahlster, W. (eds.): User Models in Dialog Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1988) 35-51Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shneiderman, B.: We Can Design Better User Interfaces: a Review of Human-Computer Interaction Styles. Ergonomics, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1988, pp. 699-710.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shneiderman, B.: A Taxonomy and Rule Base for the Selection of Interaction Styles. In Shackel, B., Richardson, S.: Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991) 325-342Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shneiderman, B.: A Taxonomy and Rule Base for the Selection of Interaction Styles. In Baecker, R.M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W.A.S, Greenberg, S.: Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (San Francisco) 1995 401-410Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (3`d ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, S.L., Mosier, J.N.: Design guidelines for the user interface software. Technical Report ESD-TR-86-278 (NTIS No. AD A177198). U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division, Hanscom Air Force Base (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutcliffe, A.G.: Human-Computer Interface Design. MacMillan, London (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanderdonckt, J., Bodart, F.: Encapsulating Knowledge for Intelligent Interaction Objects Selection. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Human Aspects in Computing Systems InterCHI’93 (Amsterdam, 24-29 April 1993). ACM Press, New York (1993) 424-429. Accessible at Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wexelblat, A.: An Approach to Natural Gesture in Virtual Environments Special Issue on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 2 No. 3 (1995) 179-200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiedenbeck, S., Davis, S.: The Influence of Interaction Style and Experience on User Perceptions of Software Packages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5 (1997) 563-588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson, S., Johnson, P.: Bridging the Generation Gap: From Work Tasks to User Interface Designs. In: Vanderdonckt, J. (Ed.), Proc. of 2°a Workshop on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces CADUI’96 (Namur, June 5-7, 1996). Presses Universitaires de Namur, Namur (1996) 77-94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Vanderdonckt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Université catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations