Towards a taxonomy for interactive graphics systems

  • G. Pierra
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


It has often been pointed out that the different architecture models proposed for interactive computer graphics were too much imprecise. Global architecture models intended to define the macro-modules that constitute such systems do not precise the functional description nor the interface of these modules. Multi-agent models, intended to define the micro-structure of the building blocks of such systems, do not precise the criteria to be used for agent identification and structurization, nor the complete set of relationships that exists between these agents and the domain-specific component that represents the semantic part of the system.

In this report we propose a taxonomy for interactive graphics systems through seven orthogonal criteria. These criteria enable to classify every systems during the analysis phase. The possible uses of this taxonomy include the following:
  • facilitating the selection process of a suitable architecture model for a system under design,

  • enabling the architecture model designers to precise the classes of systems that constitute the target application domain of their models,

  • promoting the emergence of precise architecture models that address the requirements of the different categories of interactive graphics systems.


Interactive System Architecture Model Interaction Object Domain Object Arch Model 
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.
    Bass, L., Coutaz, J.: Developing software for the user interface, Addison-Wesley (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carson, G.: Introduction to the Computer Graphics Reference Model, Computer Graphics, 27, 2, 108–118, (1993).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coad, P., Yourdon, E.: Object Oriented Analysis, Prentice Hall (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coutaz, J.: Interface homme-machine: un regard critique. Journées d’étude AFCET: Interface Homme-Machine, Paris, 21 oct. 1992, 1–24 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coutaz, J.: PAC: an implementation Model for Dialog Design. Proc. Interact’87, North Holland Publ., 431–436 (1987).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duke, D., Harrison, M.: Abstract Interaction Objects. Computer Graphics Forum, 12, 3, 25–36 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faconti, G.: The Reference Model of Computer Graphics. in: D.A. Duce et al. (eds): User Interface Management Design. New York, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag 1990, 7–14 (1990).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faconti, G., Paterno, F.: An Approach to the Formal Specification of the Components of an Interaction, EUROGRAPHICS’90, 481–494 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley, J., Wallace, V.L.: The Art of Natural Graphic Man-Machine Conversation. Proc. of IEEE G2, (1974).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IS 7942, Information Processing Systems, Computer Graphics, Graphical Kernel System-Functional Description (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, A.: Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment, Addison-Wesley (1984).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, M.: Report on on Dialogue-Specification Tools. In: G.E Pfaff (eds.): User Interface Management Systems. New York, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag 1985, 9–20 (1985).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green, M.: A survey of three dialogue models, ACM Trans Graph. 5, 3, 244–275 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halbert, D.: Programming by example, PhD. Thesis, Berkeley, California (1984).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nigay, L.: Conception et modélisation logicielle des systèmes interactifs: application aux interfaces multimodales, PhD. Thesis, Université Grenoble 1 (1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman, D.: User Centered System Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1986).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paterno, F.: A Theory of User-Interaction Objects, Journal of visual languages and computing, 5, 3, 227–249, (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IS 9592:1989, Information Processing Systems, Programmers Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System-Functional Descritpion (1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierra, G., Girard, P., Guittet, L.: Towards precise architecture models for computer graphics: The H4 architecture, position paper, in: Pre-Proceeding of Eurographics Workshop on Design, Validation and Specification of Interactive System, Bonas, France, June (1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ten Hagen, P.: Critique of the Seeheim Model. in: D.A. Duce et al. (eds): User Interface Management Design. New York, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag 1990, 3–6 (1990).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ten Hagen, P., Derksen, J.: Parallel input and feedback in dialogue cells. In: G.E Pfaff (eds.): User Interface Management Systems. New York, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer-Verlag 1985, 109–124 (1985).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The UIMS Developers Workshop-A Metamodel for the run time Architecture of An Interactive System; SIGCHI Bulletin, 24, 1, 32–37 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woods, W.: Transition network grammars for natural langage analysis. Comm. ACM, 13, 10, 591–606 (1970).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Pierra
    • 1
  1. 1.LISI/ ENSMAFuturoscope CédexFrance

Personalised recommendations