Abstract
Many studies have shown that selective undo, a variant of the widely-implemented linear undo, has many advantages over the prevailing model. In this paper, we define a task model for implementing selective undo in the face of dependencies that may exist between the undone action and other subsequent user actions. Our model accounts for these dependencies by identifying other actions besides the undone one that should also be undone to keep the application in a stable state. Our approach, which we call cascading selective undo, is built upon a process-programming language originally designed in the software engineering community. The result is a formal analytical framework by which the semantics of selective undo can be represented separately from the application itself. We present our task model, the selective undo algorithm, and discuss extensions that account for differing kinds of inter-action dependencies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abowd, G.D., Dix, A.J.: Giving undo attention. Interacting with Computers 4(3), 317–342 (1992)
Archer Jr., J.E., Conway, R., Schneider, F.B.: User recovery and reversal in interactive systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 6(1), 1–19 (1984)
Berlage, T.: A selective undo mechanism for graphical user interfaces based on command objects. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 1(3), 269–294 (1994)
Chen, D., Sun, C.: Undoing any operation in collaborative graphics editing systems. In: GROUP, pp. 197–206 (2001)
Dix, A.: Moving between contexts. In: Palanque, P., Bastide, R. (eds.) Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems ’95, Toulouse, France, pp. 149–173. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Mancini, R., Dix, A.J., Levialdi, S.: Dealing with undo. In: Proc. of INTERACT’97, Sydney, Australia, Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1997)
Myers, B.A., Kosbie, D.S.: Reusable hierarchical command objects. In: Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 96), pp. 260–267. ACM Press, New York (1996)
Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software, too. In: Proc. of the Ninth International Conf. on Software Engineering, Monterey, CA (Mar. 1987)
Prakash, A., Knister, M.J.: A framework for undoing actions in collaborative systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 1(4), 295–330 (1994)
Ressel, M., Gunzenhäuser, R.: Reducing the problems of group undo. In: GROUP, Phoenix AZ, USA, pp. 131–139 (1999)
Sun, C.: Undo any operation at any time in group editors. In: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), pp. 191–200 (2000)
Tantau, T.: User’s Guide to the Beamer Class, Version 3.06 (Oct. 2005), http://latex-beamer.sourceforge.net
Wise, A., et al.: Using Little-JIL to coordinate agents in software engineering. In: Proc. of the Automated Software Engineering Conf., Grenoble, France (Sep. 2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cass, A.G., Fernandes, C.S.T. (2007). Using Task Models for Cascading Selective Undo. In: Coninx, K., Luyten, K., Schneider, K.A. (eds) Task Models and Diagrams for Users Interface Design. TAMODIA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4385. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70816-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70816-2_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-70815-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70816-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)