Monolingual, Articulated Modeling of Users, Devices, and Interfaces

  • Thomas Moher
  • Victor Dirda
  • Rémi Bastide
  • Philippe Palanque
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


This paper presents a framework for combining the discrete models of users and devices into a global system model suitable for analysis and simulation. It views a system as a composite of interacting subsystems, and describes how those subsystems must be structured to permit compositions in which responsibility for global behavior can be appropriately ascribed. The paper presents a human-device example (wrist watch) and develops a range of task and device models. The devices and tasks are modeled by colored Petri nets partitioned to cleanly distinguish submodel component visibility and interface affordances. The formality of Petri nets allows for axiomatic validation of isolated and interacting subsystems.


Device Model Transition Firing General User Modeling Phase Display Expectation Failure 
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.
    Anderson, J.R. The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard Press, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnard, P., Wilson, M., and Maclean, A. Approximate modeling of cognitive activity with an expert system: a theory-based strategy for developing an interactive design tool. The Computer Journal, 31(5), 1988, pp. 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnard, P. Bridging between Basic Theories and the Artifacts of Human-Computer Interaction, in J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1991), pp. 103–127.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bibby, P.A. and Payne, S.J.. Internalization and Use Specificity of Device Knowledge. Human-Computer Interaction 8(1), 1993, pp. 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Card, S., Moran, T., and Newell, A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, J.M. and Olson, J.R.. Mental Models in Human Computer Interaction, in M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction,. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland (1988), pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coutaz, J. and Bass, L. Developing Software for the User Interface. Addison Wesley Publishing, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foley, J.D. and Sukavirya, P. A Second generation User Interface Design Environment: The Model and The Runtime Architecture. Proc. INTERCHI’93 (Amsterdam, April 1993), pp. 375–382.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genrich, H.J. Predicate/Transition Nets, in K. Jensen and G. Rozenberg (Eds.), High-Level Petri Nets: Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991), pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gray, W.D., John, B.E., and Atwood, M. Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance. Human-Computer Interaction 8(3), 1993, pp. 237–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray, W.D.. Why You Can’t Program Your VCR. Poster presented at CHI’94 Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (Boston, MA, 1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 231–274 (1987).CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hix, D. and Hartson, H.R. Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product & Process. Wiley Professional Computing, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob, R.J.K. A Specification Language for Direct-Manipulation User Interfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics 5(4), 1986, pp. 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen K. Coloured Petri nets and the invariant method. Theoretical Computer Science 14, 1981, North-Holland, 317–336.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    John, B.E. and Vera, A.H. A GOMS Analysis of a Graphic, Machine-Paced, Highly Interactive Task. CHI’92 Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1992), pp. 251–258.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kass, R. and Finin, T. General User Modeling: A Facility to Support Intelligent Interaction, in J.W. Sullivan and S.W. Tyler (Eds.), Intelligent User Interfaces. Publisher (1991), pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kieras, D.E. and Bovair, S. An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22 (1985) pp. 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuutti, K. and Bannone, L. Searching for Unity Among Diversity: Exploring the “Interface” Concept. Proc. INTERCHI’93, ACM Press (1993), pp. 263–267.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moher, T., Mak, D., Blumenthal, B., and Leventhal, L. Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs: The case of Petri nets. Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop. Ablex Publishing Co., 1993, pp. 137–161.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moher, T. and Dirda, V. Revising Mental Models to Accommodate Expectation Failures in Human-Computer Dialogues, in P. Palanque and R. Bastide (eds.), Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems’ 95, Springer, 1995, pp. 76–92Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moran, T.P. The Command Language Grammar: a representation for the user interface of interactive computer systems. Int. J; Man-Machine Studies, 15 (1981), pp. 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murata, T. Personal communication (1994).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palanque, P., Bastide, R., Sibertin, C, and Dourte, L. Design of User-Driven Interfaces using Petri nets and Objects, in Proceedings of 5th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE’93). Lecture Notes in Computer Science N° 685, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Payne, S.J. and Green, T.R.G. Task Action Grammars: a model of mental representation of task languages. Human Computer Interaction, 2(2), 1986, pp. 93–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peck, V. and John, B.E. Browser-Soar: A Computational Model of a Highly Interactive Task. CHI’92 Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1992), pp. 165–172.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petre, M. and Price, B. Why Computer Interfaces Are Not Like Paintings: the user as a deliberate reader, in J. Gornostaev (ed.), Proceedings of East-West HCI92: The St. Petersburg International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1 (pp. 217–224), ICSTI: Moscow 125353, Russia.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singley, M.K. and Anderson, J.R. A Keystroke Analysis of Learning and Transfer in Text Editing. Human-Computer Interaction 3(3), 1987, pp. 223–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tauber M. ETAG: Extended Task Action Grammar — A Language for the Description of the User’s Task Language. 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Biljon, W.R. Extending Petri nets for specifying man-machine dialogues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 28 (1988), 437–455CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Woods, D.D. and Roth, E.M. Cognitive Systems Engineering, in M. Helanders (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland (1988), pp. 3–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Moher
    • 1
  • Victor Dirda
    • 1
  • Rémi Bastide
    • 2
  • Philippe Palanque
    • 2
  1. 1.EECS Department (M/C 154)University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.LIS/University Toulouse IToulouse CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations