Differentiating between Successful and Less Successful Products by Using MAInEEAC – A Model for Interaction Characterization

  • Steffen Hess
  • Andreas Maier
  • Marcus Trapp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6761)


Today, the success of a software product is defined by a great user experience caused by a well-defined interaction concept rather than features. Therefore we present a new interaction model called MAInEEAC (Model for Accurate Interaction Engineering, Enhancement, Alteration, and Characterization) that is able to show what makes an interaction a great experience and what are the elements of great human-computer-interaction. Having evaluated the ways of entering an address with nine distinct navigation systems, we present several findings which are crucial for making an interaction successful. Thereby it becomes clear that a higher level of detail is required in order to recognize important differences between single interactions. MAInEEAC provides these details and can be seen as a further step towards better understanding of human-computer-interaction.


Human Computer Interaction Human System Interaction Interaction Design Interaction Engineering Interaction Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bonto-Kane, M.V., St. Amant, R.: Computational modeling approaches help guide early design efforts for usability. In: The Fifth Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing Conference: Intellect, Initiatives, Insight, and Innovations, TAPIA 2009, Portland, Oregon, April 01-04, ACM, New York (2009), Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diefenbach, S., Hassenzahl, M., Kloeckner, K., Nass, C., Maier, A.: Ein Interaktionsvokabular: Dimensionen zur Beschreibung der Ästhetik von Interaktion. In: Brau, H., Diefenbach, S., Göring, K., Peissner, M., Petrovic, K. (eds.) Usability Professionals 2010, pp. 27–32. German Chapter der Usability Professionals’ Association e.V, Stuttgart (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubberly, H., Pangaro, P., Haque, U.: ON MODELING What is interaction?: are there different types? Interactions 16(1), 69–75 (2009), doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldbogen, G.: A generalization of the GOURD model of human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (CD-Rom) ACM-SE 37, p. 48. ACM, New York (1999), doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 14915-3. Software ergonomics for multimedia user interfaces– media selection and combination. Draft International Standard (2002) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolski, C.: A “call for answers” around the proposition of an HCI-enriched model. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 23(3), 93–96 (1998), doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obrenovic, Z., Abascal, J., Starcevic, D.: Universal accessibility as a multimodal design issue. Commun. ACM 50(5), 83–88 (2007), doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pastel, R., Skalsky, N.: Object-action association: a HCI design model. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI 2004, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, January 13-16, pp. 295–297. ACM, New York (2004), doi: Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schomaker, L., Munch, S., Hartung, K.: A taxonomy of multimodal interaction in the human information processing system. Technical report, ESPRIT BRA, No. 8579 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutcliffe, et al.: A Method and Advisor Tool for Multimedia User Interface Design. International 1230819 Journal of Man-Machine Studies 64(4), 375–392 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Hess
    • 1
  • Andreas Maier
    • 1
  • Marcus Trapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations