Advertisement

Cross-Communicability: Evaluating the Meta-communication of Cross-Platform Applications

  • Rodrigo de A. Maués
  • Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8119)

Abstract

Evaluating cross-platform systems is challenging due to the different constraints and capabilities of each platform. In this paper we extend the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM), a Semiotic Engineering evaluation method, to evaluate cross-platform systems. We introduce the term cross-communicability to denote the quality of the meta-communication of the system as whole, taking into account the user traversal between the different platforms. To assess cross-communicability, we describe a novel approach to conduct the SIM, which introduces a contrastive analysis of the designer-to-user meta-communication messages of each platform, based on a semiotic framing of design changes initially proposed for End-User Development. The results from an analytical study indicate that this approach is capable of identifying and classifying several potential communication breakdowns particular to cross-platform systems, which in turn can inform the design or redesign of a cross-platform application.

Keywords

Cross-platform user interface design communicability semiotic inspection method semiotic engineering 

References

  1. 1.
    Antila, V., Lui, A.: Challenges in designing inter-usable systems. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6946, pp. 396–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denis, C., Karsenty, L.: Inter-usability of multi-device systems - a conceptual framework. In: Seffah, A., Javahery, H. (eds.) Multiple User Interfaces: Cross-Platform Applications and Context-Aware Interfaces. Wiley & Sons (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paternò, F.: Designing multi-device user interfaces: how to adapt to the changing device. In: Baranauskas, C., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 702–703. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seffah, A., Forbrig, P., Javahery, H.: Multi-devices “Multiple” user interfaces: development models and research opportunities. Journal of Systems and Software 73(2), 287–300 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wäljas, M., Segerståhl, K., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Cross-platform service user experience: a field study and an initial framework. In: Proc. MobileHCI 2010, pp. 219–228. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Florins, M., Vanderdonckt, J.: Graceful degradation of user interfaces as a design method for multiplatform systems. In: Proc. IUI 2004. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, J., Landay, J.A.: Employing patterns and layers for early-stage design and prototyping of cross-device user interfaces. In: Proc. CHI 2008, pp. 1313–1322. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghiani, G., Paternò, F., Santoro, C.: On-demand cross-device interface components migration. In: Proc. MobileHCI 2010, pp. 299–308. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paternò, F., Zichittella, G.: Desktop-to-mobile web adaptation through customizable two-dimensional semantic redesign. In: Forbrig, P. (ed.) HCSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6409, pp. 79–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serna, A., Calvary, G., Scapin, D.L.: How assessing plasticity design choices can improve UI quality: a case study. In: Proc. EICS 2010, pp. 29–34. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barbosa, S.D.J., Silva, B.S.: Interação Humano-Computador. Campus-Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Souza, C.S.: The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction. The MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prates, R.O., de Souza, C.S., Barbosa, S.D.J.: Methods and tools: a method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. ACM Interactions 7(1), 31–38 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Souza, C.S., Leitão, C.F., Prates, R.O., da Silva, E.J.: The Semiotic Inspection Method. In: Proc. IHC 2006, vol. 1, pp. 148–157. SBC (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Souza, C.S., Barbosa, S.D.J.: A semiotic framing for end-user development. In: Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Wulf, V. (org.) End User Development: People to Flexibly Employ Advanced Information and Communication Technology, pp. 401–426. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Souza, C.S., Leitão, C.F.: Semiotic Engineering Methods for Scientific Research in HCI. Morgan & Claypool (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peirce, C.S.: The essential Peirce (Vols. I and II). In: Houser, N., Kloesel, C. (eds.). Indiana University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Souza, C.S., Leitão, C.F., Prates, R.O., Bim, S.A., da Silva, E.J.: Can inspection methods generate valid new knowledge in HCI? The case of semiotic inspection. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68(1-2), 22–40 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic Evaluation. In: Mack, R., Nielsen, J. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 25–62. John Wiley & Sons (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P.: The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: a Practitioner’s Guide (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suchman, L.: Plans and situated actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo de A. Maués
    • 1
  • Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatics DepartmentPUC-RioGaveaBrazil

Personalised recommendations