The Notion of Trajectory in Graphical User Interfaces

  • Dorian Gorgan
  • David A. Duce
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


The Active Objects Model (AOM) as a model-based user interface development environment is presented. The paper highlights the convenience of the trajectory notion in the description of the structure and functionality of graphical user interfaces. The AOM model consists of a set of active agents with private rule based behaviours. Model entities involve topological information which defines the behaviour of active objects, parallel and cooperative evolution of agents, time controlling, event oriented or supervised behaviour, interactive techniques, visual programming constructs, rapid prototyping, and intelligent user interfaces. All model entities may be defined by direct manipulation techniques.


Finite State Machine Active Object Fire Station Virtual Space Flash Light 
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.
    F. Bodart, A. Hennebert, I. Provot, J. Leheureux, J. Vanderdonckt: A Model- Based Approach to Presentation: A Continuum from Task Analysis to Prototype. In the Proceedings for the Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems. Bocca di Magra, Italy, June 8–10, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. de Bruin, P. Bouwman, J. van den Bos: A Graphical User Interface Design Environment for Non-Programmers. In Computer Graphics Forum, 12(3), 1993, pp. CI3–24.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.A. Duce, D.J. Duke, P.J.W. ten Hagen, I. Herman, G.J. Reynolds: Formal methods in the development of PREMO, in: Computer Standards and Interfaces (17) 1995, pp. 491–509.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.J. Duke, M.D. Harrison: Abstract Interaction Objects, Computer Graphics Forum, 12 (3), 1993, pp. 25 – 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Elwert, E. Schlungbaum: Modelling and Generation of Graphical User Interfaces in the TADEUS Approach. In the Proceedings for the Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems, pp. 193-208. Toulouse, France, June 7 – 9, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Gorgan: Dynamic Model Functionality, in: Research Report, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, August 1995, pp. 1 – 27.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Gorgan, D. A. Duce: Multimedia Synchronization Through Interactive Active Objects, in: EUROGRAPHICS97 UK Chapter Conference, pp. 131–155. University of East Anglia, 24–26 March 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Gorgan, D. Rusu: Lesson Generating by Direct Manipulation, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Engineering Education - CAEE’93, Vol.1, pp. 223–228, September 22–24, Bucharest, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.R. Hartson, D. Hix: Human-Computer Interface Development: Concepts and Systems for its Management. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 21 (1), pp. 5 – 92, March 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Lie and N. Correia: Cineloop Synchronization in the MADE Environment, in: Proceedings of the IS&T/SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging, Conference on Multimedia Computing and Networking, San Jose, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Luo, P. Szekely, and R. Neches: Management of Interface Design in HUMANOID. Proceedings of the INTERCHF93 Conference, pp. 107–114, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Munro, M.C. Johnson, D.S. Surmon, J.A. Wogulis: Specifying Interactive Graphical Behaviours in RIDES. Research Report. Behavioral Technology Laboratories - University of Southern California. 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.A. Myers, B.V. Zanden, R.B. Dannenberg: Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. The Garnet Compendium: Collected Papers, 1989–1990, pp. 95–114, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Aug. 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.R. Olsen, E.P. Dempsey: “SYNGRAPH: A Graphical User Interface Generator”. Computer Graphics, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 43 – 50, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Singh, M. Green: Automating the Lexical and Syntactic Design of Graphical User Interfaces: The UofA UIMS. ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 10 (3), pp. 213 – 254, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. “Noi” Sukaviriya, J.D. Foley, T. Griffith: A Second Generation User Interface Design Environment: The Model and the Runtime Architecture. Proceedings of the INTERCHI’93 Conference, pp. 375–382, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Szekely, P. Sukaviriya, P. Castells, J. Muthukumarasamy, E. Salcher: Declarative interface models for user interface construction tools: the Mastermind approach. In L. Bass and C. Unger (eds.): Engineering for Human- Computer Interaction, Proceedings of EHCF95. London: Chapman & Hall 1995, pp. 120 – 150.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    A.I. Wasserman, D.T. Shewmake: The Role of Prototypes in the User Software Engineering Methodology. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 1. H.R. Hartson (Ed.) Ablex, Norwood, N.J., pp.191–210, 1985Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Wiecha, W. Bennett, S. Boies, J. Gould, S. Greene: ITS: A Tool For Rapidly Developing Interactive Applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8 (3), July 1990, pp. 204 – 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorian Gorgan
    • 1
  • David A. Duce
    • 2
  1. 1.Technical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj- NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryOxonUK

Personalised recommendations