On The Expression Of Interaction Properties Within An Interactor Model

  • Panos Markopoulos
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


This paper introduces a formal model for the description of interactive systems based on the interactor model of [15, 17]. Similarly to that model, it is intended to be used constructively for building specifications of interfaces as compositions of interactors. Changes are brought about to two aspects of the model: firstly, a modularised representation of control information is achieved which supports the independent description of the data transforming behaviour of the interactor and of the temporal constraints imposed on that behaviour. Secondly, distinct representations of ‘result’ and ‘display’ data handled by an interactor are related within a process algebraic framework, allowing the expression of usability related properties of interaction.


Interactive System Composition Operator Display Status Input Event Controller Component 
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.
    Abowd G.D.: Formal Aspects of Human Computer Interaction, PhD thesis, University of Oxford, Technical Report YCS 161, University of York (1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolognesi T., Brinksma E.: Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. In: Van Eijk P., Vissers C., Diaz M. (eds.): The Formal Description Technique LOTOS, Elsevier Science Publishers BV (1989), 23–73.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coutaz J.: PAC, an Object Oriented Model for Dialog Design. In: Bullinger H.J., Shakiel B. (eds.): Human Computer Interaction–INTERACT-’87, Elsevier Science Publishers BV (1987), 431–436.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Nicola R., Hennessy M.C.B.: Testing Equivalence for Processes. Theoretical Computer Science, North Holland, Vol. 34, 83–133 (1984).MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dix A.J.: Formal Methods for Interactive Systems, Academic Press (1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duke D.J., Harisson M.D.: Abstract Interaction Objects. In: Hubbold R.J., Juan R. (eds.): Eurographics’93, Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 12, No. 3, 26–36 (1993).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faconti G.P.: Towards the Concept of Interactor. Amodeus Project Document: System Modelling/WP8 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernadez J.C., Garavel H., Mounier L., Rasse A., Rodriguez C., Sifakis J.: A toolbox for the verification of LOTOS Programs. In: 14th International Conference on Software Engineering, Melbourne, May (1992).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrison M.D., Dix A.J.: A state model of direct manipulation in interactive systems. In: Harisson M. D., Thimbleby H.W. (eds.): Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction, Cambridge Univ. Press (1990), 129–151.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krasner G.E., Pope S.T.: A Cookbook For Using the Model-View-Controller User Interface Paradigm in The Smalltalk-80 System, Journal of Object Oriented Programming, Vol. 1, No. 3, 26–49 (1988).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markopoulos P., Wilson S., Johnson P.: Representation and Use of Task Knowledge in a User Interface Design Environment. IEE Proceedings-E, Computers and Digital Techniques, Vol. 141, No. 2, 79–84 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markopoulos P., Gikas S.: Towards A Formal Model For Extant Task Knowledge Representation. In: Stary C (ed.): 1st Interdisciplinary Workshop on Cognitive Modelling and User Interface Development, Vienna (1994).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myers B.A.: A New Model for Handling Input. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3, 289–320 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palanque P., Bastide R.: Petri net based design of user driven interfaces using the interactive cooperative objects formalism. In: Paterno’ F. (ed.): Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Eurographics workshop, 215–228 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paterno’ F., Faconti G.: On the use of LOTOS to describe graphical interaction. In: Monk A., Diaper D., Harrison M.D.`, (eds.): People and Computers VII, Proc. HCI’92 Conference, Cambridge Univ. Press (1992), 155–173.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paterno’ F.: Definition of properties of user interfaces using action based temporal logic. In: Proceedings, 5th conference in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (1993), 314–318.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paterno’ F.: A Theory of User Interaction Objects. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Academic Press Ltd, Vol. 5, 227–249 (1994).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paterno’ R, Mezzanotte M.: Analysing Matis by Interactors and ACTL. Amodeus Project Document:. System Modelling/WP36 (1994).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sufrin B., He J.: Specification analysis and refinement of interactive processes. In: Harisson M.D., Thimbleby H.W. (eds.): Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction, Cambridge Univ. Press (1990), 153–200.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vissers C.A., Scollo G., van Sinderen M., Brinksma E.: Specification styles in distributed systems design and verification. Theoretical Computer Science Vol. 89, 179–206 (1991).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panos Markopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpt. of Computer Science, QMW CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations