VALUTA: A Tool to Specify and Verify Interactive Visual Applications

  • Rosanna Cassino
  • Maurizio Tucci
Conference paper


This paper presents a system to specify and verify web applications, based on previous results on usability evaluation of interactive visual interfaces by means of checking their corresponding formal specification. In Cassino and Tucci we have described a methodology to design, specify and evaluate interactive visual interfaces, based on the SR-Action Grammars formalism, and we have presented a bottom – up approach to guide the designer to develop graphical user interface which respect any usability metrics before the software is released and tested by standard methods. TAGIVE (Tool for the Aided Generation of Interactive Visual Environments) is a visual environment for the implementation of interactive visual applications (html, xml, java applications), and for the generation of the underlying SR-Action Grammar specification. Now, we present VALUTA (Automatic Tool for the Usability V erification at A bstraction Level ), a tool that supports the generation of the formal specification of existing interactive visual applications in an automatic manner, so to perform the related usability controls. Checking the usability of interactive applications at a formal level, allows a designer to perform feedback analysis of the environment under consideration.


Abstraction Level Graph Transformation Graph Grammar Visual Language Automatic Manner 
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.
    Ferrucci F, Tortora G, Vitiello G (2000) Visual programming. In Marciniak JJ (ed) Encyclopaedia of software engineering 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costagliola G, De Lucia A, Orefice S, Tortora G (1995) Automatic generation of visual programming environments.IEEE Comput 28(3):56–66Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Della Penna G, Intrigila B, Orefice S (2001) Generating graphical applications from state-transition visual specifications. Int J Human Comput Stud 55:861–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bottoni P, Taentzer G, Schurr A (2000) Efficient parsing of visual languages based on critical pair analysis and contextual layered graph transformation. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Symposium on visual languages, pp 59–60Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minas M (1997) Diagram editing with hypergraph parser support. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE symposium on visual languages, Capri, Italy, pp 226–233Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rekers J, Schürr A (1997) Defining and parsing visual languages with layered graph grammars. J Visual Lang Comput 8:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bardohl R, Minas M, Schürr A, Taentzer G (1998) Application of graph transformation to visual languages. In Rozenberg G (ed) Handbook on graph grammars: applications, vol 2. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 105–180Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrucci F, Tortora G, Tucci M, Vitiello G (2001) A system for rapid prototyping of visual language environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE symposia on human-centric computing languages and environments (HCC’01), September 2001, pp 382–389Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minas M (2002) Specifying graph-like diagrams with dia gen. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 72(2):102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bottoni P, Chang SK, Costabile MF, Levialdi S, Mussio P (2002) Modelling visual interactive systems through dynamic visual languages. Syst Man Cybern A IEEE Trans 32(6):654–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christoph A (2003) Design aspect and GRS-based AOD the GREAT transformation framework. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 82(5)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cassino R, Tucci M (2009) Checking the consistency, completeness and usability of interactive visual applications by means of SR-action grammars. Springer book – In D'Atri A, Saccà D (eds) Information systems: people, organizations, institutions, and technologies. Physica-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen J (1994b) Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità di SalernoSalernoItaly

Personalised recommendations