DMVIS: Design, Modelling and Validation of Interactive Systems

  • Bob Fields
  • Nick Merriam
  • Andy Dearden
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


Much of the work reported in the first three DSVIS conferences has concentrated on techniques and languages for specifying and developing interactive systems. In this paper, we argue that a change of emphasis may be necessary as the field matures. We argue that real projects with specific objectives for formal methods are more likely to employ a range of diverse, lightweight modelling techniques. We explore this view by showing how, on one example, several quite different kinds of analysis can be performed using different models.


Interactive System Structure Diagram Word Processor Interaction Framework Spelling Checker 
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. Abowd, G., H.-M. Wang, and A. Monk (1995, August). A formal technique for automated dialogue developments. In Proceedings, First Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems — DIS’95, Ann Arbor, MI. Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, A., M.-C. Gaudel, and B. Marre (1995, September). An experiment on the validation of a specification by heterogeneous formal means: The transit node. In 5th IFIP Working Conference on Dependable Computing for Critical Applications (DCCA-5), Urbana-Champaign, USA, pp. 24 – 34.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, P. and J. May (1995). Interactions with advanced graphical interfaces and the deployment of latent human knowledge. See Paterno (1995), pp. 15 – 48.Google Scholar
  4. Blandford, A., M. Harrison, and P. Barnard (1995). Using interaction framework to guide the design of interactive systems. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies 43, 101 - 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodart, F. and J. Vanderdonckt (Eds.) (1996). Design, Specification, Verification of Interactive Systems’96, Springer Computer Science. Springer Wien New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bramwell, C. (1995). Formal aspects of the Design Rationale of Interactive Systems. Ph. D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of York.Google Scholar
  7. Bramwell, C., B. Fields, and M. Harrison (1995). Exploring design options rationally. See Palanque and Bastide (1995a), pp. 134 – 148.Google Scholar
  8. Dix, A. (1991). Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Computers and People Series. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dix, A., J. Finlay, G. Abowd, and R. Beale (1993). Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
  10. Faconti, G. P. and D. J. Duke (1996). Device models. See Bodart and Vanderdonckt (1996), pp. 73 – 91.Google Scholar
  11. Fields, B., M. Harrison, and P. Wright (1995). Modelling interactive systems and providing task relevant information. See Paterno (1995), pp. 253 – 266.Google Scholar
  12. Green, T. R. G. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. In A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the BCS HCI Special Interest Group, pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, M., A. Blandford, and P. Barnard (1995). The requirements engineering of user freedom. See Paterno (1995), pp. 181 – 194.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, M., C. Roast, and P. Wright (1989). Complementary methods for the iterative design of interactive systems. In G. Salvendy and M. Smith (Eds.), Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge-Based Systems, pp. 651–658. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Hooper, K. (1986). Archtectural Design: An analogy. In D. Norman and S. Draper (Eds.), User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human Computer Interaction, Chapter 1, pp. 9–23. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. May, J., S. Scott, and P. Barnard (1995). Structuring Displays: A Psychological Guide. Eurographics Tutorial Notes Series. EACG: Geneva. Appeared as Amodeus report B04.Google Scholar
  18. Monk, A. and M. Curry (1994). Discount dialogue modelling with Action Simulator. In G. Cockton, S. Draper, and G. Weir (Eds.), Proceedings, HCI’94, Number IX in People and Computers, pp. 327 – 338. BCS HCI Specialist Group: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nuseibeh, B. (1996). To be And not to be: On managing inconsistency in software development. In Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-8), pp. 164-169. IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  20. Olsen, D., A. Monk, and M. Curry (1995). Algorithms for automatic dialogue analysis using propositional production systems. Human Computer Interaction 10, 39 – 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palanque, P. and R. Bastide (Eds.) (1995a). Design, Specification, Verification of Interactive Systems ’95, Springer Computer Science. Springer Wien New York.Google Scholar
  22. Palanque, P. and R. Bastide (1995b). Petri net-based design of user-driven interfaces using the interactive cooperative objects formalism. See Paterno (1995), pp. 383– 400.Google Scholar
  23. Palanque, P., F. Paternò, R. Bastide, and M. Mezzanote (1996). Towards and integrated proposal for interactive systems design based in TLIM and ICO. See Bodart and Vanderdonckt (1996), pp. 162 – 187.Google Scholar
  24. Parnas, D. L. (1996, April). Mathematical methods: What we need and don’t need. IEEE Computer, 28 – 29.Google Scholar
  25. Paterno, F. (Ed.) (1995). Interactive Systems: Design, Specification and Verification, Focus on Computer Graphics Series. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Paterno, F., M. Sciacchitano, and J. Lowgren (1995). A user interface evaluation mapping physical user actions to task-driven formal specifications. See Palanque and Bastide (1995a), pp. 35 – 53.Google Scholar
  27. Szwillus, G. and K. Kespohl (1996). Prototyping device interfaces with DSN/2. See Bodart and Vanderdonckt (1996), pp. 123 – 140.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, H.-M. and G. Abowd (1994, July). A tabular interface for automated verification of event-based dialogues. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-189, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, P., B. Fields, and M. Harrison (1996). Distributed information resources: A new approach to interaction modelling. In T. Green, J. Canas, and C. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings ofECCE8: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, pp. 5-10. EACE. URL: Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bob Fields
    • 1
  • Nick Merriam
    • 1
  • Andy Dearden
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction GroupDepartment of Computer Science, University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations