Advertisement

Issues in the evaluation of user interface tools

  • Len Bass
  • Gregory Abowd
  • Rick Kazman
Invited Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 896)

Abstract

We define a framework for the evaluation of user interface construction tools in terms of six software engineering qualities. These qualities are understood in terms of who judges the quality — developer or end user; and what artifact is judged — the development tool itself or the systems it produces. We identify four classes of evaluation techniques: functional inspection, architectural inspection, direct developer input, and benchmarking. We then examine each of the quality factors and discuss the effectiveness of different evaluation techniques for each.

Keywords

User Interface Quality Attribute Software Architecture Target System Evaluation Technique 
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. [BCH90]
    L. Bass, B. Clapper, E. Hardy, R. Kazman, and R. Seacord. Serpent: A user interface management system. In Proceedings of the Winter 1990 USENIX Conference, pages 245–258, Berkeley, California, January 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [BD93]
    L. Bass and P. Dewan (eds). Trends in Software: User Interface Software. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [Cou87]
    J. Coutaz. PAC, an implementation model for dialog design. In Proceedings of Interact '87, pages 431–436, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [GC87]
    R.B. Grady and D.L. Caswell. Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-Wide Program. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [GS93]
    D. Garlan and M. Shaw. An introduction to software architecture. In Advances in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Volume I. World Scientific Publishing, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [HH93]
    H.R. Hartson and D. Hix. Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product and Process. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [HS91]
    D. Hix and R. Schulman. Human-computer interface development tools: A methodology for their evaluation. Communications of the ACM, 34 (3): 74–87, March 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [ISO91]
    ISO/ISE, International Standard 9126. Information Technology — Software Product Evaluation — Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use. ISO/TEC Copyright Office, Geneva, Switzerland, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [KBA94]
    R. Kazman, L. Bass, G. Abowd, and M. Webb. SAAM: A method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In Proceedings of ICSE-16, Sorrento, Italy, May, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [MRW77]
    J. McCall, P. Richards, and G. Walters. Factors in Software Quality, three volumes. NTIS AD-A049-014, 15, 055, November 1977.Google Scholar
  11. [Osk82]
    Oskarsson, Ö. Mechanisms of modiflability in large software systems. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Dissertations No. 77, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. [Pfa85]
    Pfaff, G. (ed). User Interface Management Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [Sof89]
    Software Engineering Institute. Serpent Overview (CMU/SEI-91-UG-1, ADA240606). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [TJ93]
    R. Taylor and G. Johnson. Separations of concerns in the Chiron-1 user interface development and management system. In Proceedings of Inter-CHI '93, pages 367–374, Amsterdam, May 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [UIMS92]
    UIMS Tool Developers Workshop. A metamodel for the runtime architecture of an interactive system. SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(1): 32–37, January 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Len Bass
    • 1
  • Gregory Abowd
    • 1
  • Rick Kazman
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Engineering InstitutePittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations