Advertisement

Contrasting Models for Visualisation (Seeing the wood through the trees)

  • Chris Roast
  • Jawed Siddiqi
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)

Abstract

It is widely recognised that design quality is influenced by the perspective adopted by developers. In the case of formal methods such perspectives are frequently offered by identifying and/or developing appropriate models, from which requirements and systems can be expressed and even verified. In addition, to this there is a growing recognition that selecting and employing a model is an activity which is less dependent upon formal adequacy and more dependent upon ease of use. In this paper we examine and assess factors relevant to design quality that are apparent in comparing two alternative modelling approaches. The specific case study used is that of a system for visualising and manipulating a logical tree.

Keywords

Formal Method Abstract Model Current Node Concrete Case Abstract View 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Austin and G I Parkin. Formal methods: a survey. Technical report, 1993. National Physical Laboratory, UK.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jonathan P. Bowen and M. Hinchey. Ten commandments of formal methods. IEEE Computer, April 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Britton, S. Jones, and W. Lam. Separating the system interface from its internal state: an alternate structure for Z specifications. In Siddiqi [15], pages 87 — 102. ISBN 0 86339 7948.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Cohen. A rejustification of the need for formal notations. IEEE Software Engineering Journal, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Craigen, S. Gerhart, and T. Ralston. An international survey of industrial application of formal methods. Technical report, 1993. NISTGCR 93 626.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. M. Dearden and M. D. Harrison. Abstract models for HCI. The International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (46): 151–177, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. J. Dix. Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Duke, G. Faconti, M. Harrison, and Paterno F. Unifying views of interactors. In Advanced Visual Interfaces ’84, pages 143–152. ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. J. Duke and M. D. Harrison. Mapping user requirements to implementations. Software Engineering Jounal, 10 (1): 13–20, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Kotze. A generic modeling framework for interactive authoring support environments. In Siddiqi [15], pages 14 — 31. ISBN 0 86339 7948.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. G. Leveson. Intent specification: An approach to building human-centered specification. In ICRE’98, pages 204–213. 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Markopoulos. Comparing non deterministic models of tasks and devices. In Siddiqi [15], pages 70 — 85. ISBN 0 86339 7948.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. F. Monk, M. B. Curry, and P. C. Wright. Why industry doesn’t use the wonderful notations we researchers have given them to reason about their design. In D. J. Gilmore, R.L. Winder, and F. Detienne, editors, User-centred requirements for software engineering, pages 185–188. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. R. Roast and J. I. Siddiqi. Using the template model to analyse directory visualisation. Interacting with Computers, 9 (2): 155–172, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. I. Siddiqi, editor. BCS-FRCS Workshop on Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interface, Sheffield Hallam University, 1998. SHU Press, 1998. ISBN 0 86339 7948.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. I. Siddiqi and C. R. Roast. Formally assessing visual and textual notations for supporting program modification. Technical report, Sheffield Hallam University, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Sufrin and J. He. Specification, refinement and analysis of interactive processes. In M. D. Harrison and H. W. Thimbleby, editors, Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction, pages 153–200. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. W. Thimbleby. Delaying commitment. Technical Report YCS 90, University of York, Computer Science Dept., 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.M. Wing. A specifier’s introduction to formal methods. IEEE Computer, pages 8–22, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Roast
    • 1
  • Jawed Siddiqi
    • 1
  1. 1.Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations