On biasing behaviour to the optimal

  • R. J. Butterworth
  • D. J. Cooke
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


A formal framework for synthesizing interactive systems is outlined. A distinction is made between the functional ‘behaviour’ of a system, which is a description of everything that the user is permitted to do, and the ‘use’ of a system, which is what the user is likely to do. A way for capturing the use requirements of a system in terms of how ‘good’ is a given use is proposed and discussed as well as a way of describing interface specifications and terms of what user interfaces do rather than how they do it. The two aspects are related so that an analyst can judge whether changes in the interface model cause required improvements in the use of the system. Some of the implications of this approach are discussed and a comparison is made to other formal approaches in HCI.


Interactive System Finite State Machine Error Ratio Interface Effect Word Processor 
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]
    G. D. Abowd and A. J. Dix. Integrating status and event phenomena in formal specifications of interactive systems. Softwate Engineering Notices, 19 (5): 44 – 52, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Barnard and J. May. Cognitive modelling for user requirements. In P. F. Byerley, Barnard P. J., and J. May, editors, Computers, Communications and Usability: Design issues, research and methods for integrated service, pages 101–145. Elsevier, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. J. Butterworth and D. J. Cooke. Using temporal logic in the specification of reactive and interactive systems. In Formal Aspects of the Human Computer Interface. BCS-FACS, Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Card, T. Moran, and A. Newell. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. J. Dix. Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Computers and People Series. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. D. Harrison and D. J. Duke. A review of formalisms for describing interactive behaviour. In R. N. Taylor and C. Coutaz, editors, Software engineering and human-computer interaction (Lecture notes in computer science vol. 896), pages 49–75. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Lamport. The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16 (3): 872 - 923, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Sufrin and J. He. Specification, analysis and refinement of interactive processes. In Formal Methods in Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge series on HCI, pages 153–199. Cambridge Uni. Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. M. Young, T. R. G. Green, and T. Simon. Programmable user models for predictive evaluation of interface design. In K. Bice and C. H. Lewis, editors, Proceedings of CHI ’89: Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 15–19. Accociation of computing machinery, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Butterworth
    • 1
  • D. J. Cooke
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer StudiesLoughborough UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations