Formal aspects of task based design

  • Panos Markopoulos
  • Peter Johnson
  • Jon Rowson
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


The paper discusses the formalisation of some intuitions which underlie the task based design of user interfaces. Some aspects of user task knowledge are modelled formally and the user interface is represented using a formal interactor model. A conceptual framework is introduced which relates the two representations and helps formalise their relationship as a conformance relationship. The discussion gives rise to a practical scheme for verifying and testing user interfaces and their specifications with respect to task models.


Task Model Interface Model Abstraction Level Task Action Label Transition System 
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]
    Abowd GD, Coutaz J & Nigay L (1992) Structuring the Space of Interactive system Properties, In Larson J & Unger C (Eds.) Engineering for Human Computer Interaction, Proc. IFIP TC2/WG2.7 working conference, Elsevier (North-Holland), pp. 113 – 129.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Barnard PJ & Harrison MD (1992) Towards a Framework for Modelling Human-Computer Interactions. In Gornostaev J (Ed.) Proc. East-West International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction EWHCI’92, St. Petersburg, Russia, ICSTI(Moscow), pp. 189 – 197.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brinksma E (1989) A theory for the derivation of tests. In van Eijk PHJ, Vissers CA & Diaz M (Eds.) The Formal Description Technique Lotos, Elsevier (North-Holland), pp. 235 – 247.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Caneve M & Salvatori E (1992) LITE user manual. LOTOSPHERE Project Technical Report, Lo/WP2/N0034/Vo8.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Duke DJ & Harrison MD (1993) Abstract Interaction Objects, in Hubbold RJ & Juan R (Eds.) EUROGRAPHICS’93, Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 26 – 36.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Faconti GP & Duke DJ (1996) Device Models. In Bodart F & Vanderdonckt J (Eds.) Interactive Systems ’96, Proc. DSV-IS ’96, Springer (Wien), pp. 73 – 91.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    ISO (1989) Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - LOTOS - A Formal Description Technique based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour, ISO/IEC 8807, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Johnson H & Johnson P (1991) Task knowledge structures: Psychological basis and integration into systems design. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 78, pp. 3 – 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Johnson P, Wilson S, Markopoulos P & Pycock J (1993) ADEPT - Advanced design environment for prototyping with task models, Demonstration abstract. In Aschlund S et al. (Eds.) Bridges Between Worlds - INTERCHI ’93, Addison-Wesley, pp. 56.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Lim KY & Long J (1994) The MUSE method for usability engineering. Cambridge University Press, Glasgow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Markopoulos P, Wilson S & Johnson P (1994) Representation and Use of Task Knowledge in a User Interface Design Environment. IEE Proceedings~E, Computers and Digital Techniques, Vol. 141, No. 2, pp. 79 - 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Markopoulos P (1997) A compositional model for the formal specification of user interfaces. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, March 1997.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Milner R (1989) Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, UK.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Monk A, Wright P, Haber J & Davenport (1993) Improving your human computer interface: a practical technique. Prentice-Hall (Hemel-Hempstead).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    De Nicola R (1989) Extensional equivalences for transition systems, Acta Informatica, Vol. 24, 211 – 237.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Palanque P, Paternó F, Bastide R & Mezzanotte M (1996) Towards an integrated proposal for interactive systems design based in TLIM and ICO. In Bodart F & Vanderdonckt J (Eds.) Interactive Systems ’96, Proc. DSV-IS ’96, Springer (Wien), pp. 162 – 187.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Palanque P & Bastide R (1996) A design life-cylce for the formal design of user interface. In Roast C & Siddiqi J (Eds.) Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interface, BCS-FACS workshop, Springer, eWiC series.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Paterno F & Faconti G (1992) On the use of LOTOS to describe graphical interaction. In Monk A, Diaper D & Harrison MD, People and Computers VII, Proc. HCF92, Cambridge University Press, pp. 155 – 173.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Paterno F (1993) A formal approach to the evaluation of interactive systems. SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 69 –73.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Pavon S & Larrabeiti D (1993) LOLA (LOtos LAboratory) User Manual v.3.4, Scholar
  21. [21]
    Whiteside J, Bennet J & Holtzblatt J (1988) Usability Engineering: Our experience and evolution. In Helander M (Ed.) Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, Elsevier (North-Holland), pp. 791 – 817.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Wilson S & Johnson P (1996) Bridging the generation gap: From work tasks to user interface designs. In Vanderdonckt J (Ed.) 2nd International Workshop on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, CADUI’96, Presses Universitaires de Namur, pp. 77 – 94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panos Markopoulos
    • 1
  • Peter Johnson
    • 1
  • Jon Rowson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science Queen Mary and Westfield CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations