Advertisement

Moving Between Contexts

  • Alan Dix
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)

Abstract

Any action is performed in a particular context. So what does it mean to do the ‘same’ thing in a different context? There is no simple answer to this question, it depends on the interpretation of the operation and even then may be ambiguous. This is not a purely theoretical problem, but occurs in practical computational problems. This paper examines this issue looking at three different problems: multi-user undo, distributed update and the simultaneous development of a document in multiple formats. In each case, we find formal rules which any sensible translation must obey. We also see that dynamic pointers, a generic specification and implementation concept defined in previous work, can be used to generate default translation rules which suffice in many circumstances. This is because dynamic pointers can themselves be seen as a translation of location information between different contexts.

Keywords

Default Rule Dynamic Pointer Translation Rule Ascii Text Implementation Concept 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gregory D. Abowd and Alan J. Dix. Giving undo attention. Interacting with Computers, 4 (3): 317 - 342, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. J. Dix. Dynamic pointers and threads. Collaborative Computing (accepted for publication), 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.J. Dix. Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alan J. Dix and Victoria C. Miles. Version control for asynchronous group work. Technical Report YCS 181, Computer Science Dept., University of York, U.K., 1992. (Poster presentation HCI’92: People and Computers VII).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.A. Ellis and S.J. Gibbs. Concurrency control in groupware systems. SIGMOD Record, 18(2):399-407, June 1989. 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.D. Harrison and A.J. Dix. Modelling the relationship between state and display in interactive systems. In P.Gornay and M.J.Tauber, editors, Visualisation in Human—Computer Interaction, volume LNCS 439, pages 241-249. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.J. Kistler and M. Satyanarayanan. Disconnected operation in the coda file system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 10 (1): 3 - 25, February 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atul Prakash and Michael J. Knister. Undoing actions in collaborative work. In CSCWU92 — Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pages 273-280. ACM Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Schill. Cooperative Office Systems. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E Wright, A. Monk, and M. Harrison. State, display an undo: a study of consistency in display base interaction. Technical report, University of York, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Dix
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of HuddersfieldQueensgate HuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations