Advertisement

A review of formalisms for describing interactive behaviour

  • M. D. Harrison
  • D. J. Duke
Invited Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 896)

Abstract

This paper reviews the state of research linking formal specification and interactive systems. An appreciation of Human Computer Interaction has become increasingly important within Software Engineering. As systems have become more complex there is an increasing awareness of the consequences of human error. As a result the formal specification of interactive behaviour has become a pressing topic of research. The notations considered here describe both the capabilities and resources of users in relation to a specific system and those aspects of an interactive system that must be analysed from a user perspective before implementation. The review concludes by surveying ongoing work which attempts to bridge the gap between disciplinary standpoints.

Keywords

Formal Method Interactive System Human Computer Interaction Semantic Feature Interactive Behaviour 
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. [Abo91]
    G. D. Abowd. Formal Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction. PhD thesis, University of Oxford Computing Laboratory: Programming Research Group, 1991. Available as Technical Monograph PRG-97.Google Scholar
  2. [BH92]
    P. J. Barnard and M. D. Harrison. Towards a framework for modelling human computer interaction. In J. Gornostaev, editor, Proceedings International Conference on HCI, EWHCI'92, pages 189–196. Moscow: ICSTI, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [BHB93]
    A.E. Blandford, M.D. Harrison, and P.J. Barnard. Integrating user requirements and systems specification. In Computers, Communication and Usability: Design Issues, Research Methods and Integrated Services, pages 165–196. North Holland Studies in Telecommunication, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [CCCSL94]
    L.M.F. Carneiro-Coffin, D.D. Cowan, D. Smith, and C.J.P. Lucena. An experience using JASMINUM—formalization assisting with the design of user interfaces. In IEEE Workshop on Software Engineering and Human Computer Interaction: Joint Research Issues, Sorrento, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [CMN83]
    S. K. Card, T. P. Moran, and A. Newell. The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. [Cou87]
    J. Coutaz. PAC, an object oriented model for dialog design. In H. J. Bullinger and B. Shackel, editors, Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT'87, pages 431–436. North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [dBBvdB94]
    H. de Bruin, P. Bowman, and J. van den Bos. Modelling and analysing human-computer dialogues with protocols. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 61–84. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [DFHP94]
    D.J. Duke, G. Faconti, M.D. Harrison, and F. Paternò. Unifying views of interactors. In Proceedings of Advanced Visual Interface '94 International Workshop, Bari, (to be published by ACM Press), 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [DH93]
    D.J. Duke and M.D. Harrison. Abstract interaction objects. Computer Graphics Forum, 12(3):25–36, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [DH94a]
    D.J. Duke and M.D. Harrison. Connections: from A(V) to Z. Technical Report SYSMOD WP 29, MRC-APU, Cambridge—Amodeus 2 Working Papers, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [DH94b]
    D.J. Duke and M.D. Harrison. From formal models to formal methods. In IEEE Workshop on Software Engineering and Human Computer Interaction: Joint Research Issues, Sorrento, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [DH94c]
    D.J. Duke and M.D. Harrison. A preliminary FSM analysis of the CERD. Technical Report SYSMOD IR 3, MRC-APU, Cambridge—Amodeus 2 Working Papers, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [DHRT87]
    A. J. Dix, M. D. Harrison, C. Runciman, and H. W. Thimbleby. Interaction models and the principled design of interactive systems. In H. Nichols and D. S. Simpson, editors, European Software Engineering Conference, pages 127–135. Springer Lecture Notes, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. [Dia89]
    D. Diaper. Task Analysis for Human Computer Interaction. Ellis Horwood, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [Dix91]
    A.J. Dix. Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [Dix94]
    A.J. Dix. LADA—a logic for the analysis of distributed actions. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 197–214. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [DtHvL90]
    D. Duce, P. ten Hagen, and R. van Liere. An approach to hierarchical input devices. Computer Graphics Forum, 9(1):15–26, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [FHW94a]
    B. Fields, M. Harrison, and P. Wright. Applying formal methods to improve usability. In IEEE Workshop on Software Engineering and Human Computer Interaction: Joint Research Issues, Sorrento, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [FHW94b]
    B. Fields, M. Harrison, and P. Wright. From informal requirements to agent-based specification: an aircraft warnings case study. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26(2):65–68, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [FHW94c]
    B. Fields, M. Harrison, and P. Wright. Modelling interactive systems and providing task relevant information. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 131–146. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [FP90]
    G. Faconti and F. Paternò. An approach to the formal specification of the components of an interaction. In C. Vandoni and D. Duce, editors, Eurographics 90, pages 481–494. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. [GSP88]
    T. R. G. Green, F. Schiele, and S. J. Payne. Formalisable models of user knowledge in human-computer interaction. In G. C. van de Veer, T. R. G. Green, J. M. Hoc, and D. Murray, editors, Working with Computers: Theory versus Outcome, pages 3–46. Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. [HA91]
    M.D. Harrison and G.D. Abowd. Formal methods in human computer interaction: A tutorial. Technical Report YCS 155, University of York, Department of Computer Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [HAD93]
    M.D. Harrison, G.D. Abowd, and A.J. Dix. Analysing display oriented interaction by means of system models. In Computers, Communication and Usability: Design Issues, Research and Methods for Integrated Services, pages 147–163. Elsevier, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. [Har92]
    M.D. Harrison. Engineering Human Error Tolerant Software. In Nichols, editor, Proceedings of the Z User Conference, pages 191–204. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. [HB93]
    M. D. Harrison and P. J. Barnard. On defining requirements for interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering, pages 50–54. IEEE, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. [HD90]
    M. D. Harrison and A. J. Dix. A state model of direct manipulation. In M. D. Harrison and H. W. Thimbleby, editors, Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction, pages 129–151. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. [Hei94]
    C. Heitmeyer. The role of HCI in CASE tools supporting formal methods. In IEEE Workshop on Software Engineering and Human Computer Interaction: Joint Research Issues, Sorrento, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. [HG92]
    H.R. Hartson and P.D. Gray. Temporal aspects of tasks in the user action notation. Human-Computer Interaction, 7:1–45, 1992.Google Scholar
  30. [HH93]
    D. Hix and H.R. Hartson. Developing User Interfaces: ensuring usability through product and process. J. Wiley and sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. [HM94]
    R. Hartson and K. Mayo. A framework for precise, reusable task abstractions. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 147–164. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. [Hoa85]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International, 1985.Google Scholar
  33. [HP90]
    A. Howes and S. J. Payne. Display-based competence: towards user models for menu-driven interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33:637–655, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. [HRW89]
    M. D. Harrison, C. R. Roast, and P. C. Wright. Complementary methods for the iterative design of interactive systems. In G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith, editors, Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge Based Systems, pages 651–658. Elsevier Scientific, 1989.Google Scholar
  35. [ICS91]
    Geneva ISO Central Secretariat. Information processing systems, computer graphics, computer graphics reference model. ISO/IEC DIS 11 072, 1991.Google Scholar
  36. [ISO88]
    ISO. Information processing systems—open systems interconnection—LOTOS—a formal technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. Technical Report 8807, ISO Standards Authority, 1988.Google Scholar
  37. [Jac86]
    R. J. K. Jacob. A specification language for direct manipulation user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(4):238–317, 1986.Google Scholar
  38. [Jon92]
    C.B. Jones. An Object-Based Design Method for Concurrent Programs. Technical Report UMCS-92-12-1, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Manchester, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. [Kno88]
    C. Knowles. Can cognitive complexity theory (CCT) produce an adequate measure of system usability? In D. M. Jones and R. Winder, editors, People and Computers IV, pages 291–307. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. [KP85]
    D. E. Kieras and P. G. Polson. An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22:365–394, 1985.Google Scholar
  41. [KP88]
    G. Krasner and S. Pope. A cookbook for using the model-view-controller interface paradigm in Smalltalk-80. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, August-September 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [Mar87]
    L.S. Marshall. A formal description method for user interfaces. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K., 1987.Google Scholar
  43. [Mil89]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International, 1989.Google Scholar
  44. [Mor81]
    T.P. Moran. The command language grammar: a representation for the user interface of interactive computer systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15:3–50, 1981.Google Scholar
  45. [Mye90]
    B. Myers. A new model for handling input. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):289–320, 1990.Google Scholar
  46. [New90]
    A. Newell. Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  47. [PB94]
    P. Palanque and R. Bastide. Petri net based design of user-driven interfaces using the interactive co-operating objects formalism. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 215–228. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  48. [PF92]
    F. Paternò and G. Faconti. On the Use of LOTOS to Describe Graphical Interaction. In A. Monk, D. Diaper, and M.D. Harrison, editors, People and Computers VII: HCI'92 Conference, pages 155–174. BCS HCI Specialist Group, Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. [PG86]
    S. J. Payne and T. R. G. Green. Task-action grammars: a model of mental representation of task languages. Human-Computer Interaction, 2(2):93–133, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. [PLP94]
    F. Paternò, A. Leonardi, and S. Pangoli. A tool-supported approach to the refinement of interactive systems. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 85–96. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  51. [Rei81]
    P. Reisner. Formal grammar and human factors design of an interactive graphics system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-7(2):229–240, 1981.Google Scholar
  52. [Rei93]
    P. Reisner. APT: a description of user interface inconsistency. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(2):215–236, 1993.Google Scholar
  53. [RH94]
    C.R. Roast and M.D. Harrison. User centred system modelling using the template model. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 275–292. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  54. [Rus93]
    J. Rushby. Formal methods and the certification of critical systems. Technical Report CSL-93-7, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, 1993.Google Scholar
  55. [SG90]
    F. Schiele and T. R. G. Green. HCI formalisms and cognitive psychology: the case of task action grammar. In M. D. Harrison and H. W. Thimbleby, editors, Formal methods in Human Computer Interaction, pages 9–62. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  56. [Sha87a]
    B. D. Sharratt. The incorporation of early interface evaluation into command language grammar specifications. In D. Diaper and R. Winder, editors, People and Computers III-Proceedings HCI 87. Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  57. [Sha87b]
    B. D. Sharratt. Top-down interactive systems design: some lessons learnt from using command language grammar specifications. In H.-J. Bullinger and B. Shackel, editors, Proceedings of INTERACT'87, pages 395–399. North-Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  58. [Sim88]
    T. Simon. Analysing the scope of cognitive models in human-computer interaction: a trade-off approach. In D. M. Jones and R. Winder, editors, People and Computers IV, pages 79–93. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  59. [Spi88]
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. [Tau90]
    M.J. Tauber. ETAG: extended task action grammar-a language for the description of the user's task language. In D. Diaper et al., editors, Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT'90, pages 163–168. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  61. [TC94]
    J. Torres and B. Clares. Using an abstract model for the formal specification of interactive graphics systems. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 275–292. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  62. [vH94]
    M. van Harmelen. Object-oriented modelling and specification for user interface design. In F. Paternò, editor, Proc Eurographics Workshop on Design Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Italy, pages 97–112. Eurographics, 1994.Google Scholar
  63. [WFH94]
    P.C. Wright, R. Fields, and M.D. Harrison. Deriving error tolerance requirements from task analysis. In IGRE '94 Conference on requirements engineering, Colorado Springs. IEEE, April 1994.Google Scholar
  64. [YBSW89]
    R. M. Young, P. Barnard, T. Simon, and J. Whittington. How would your favourite user model cope with these scenarios? SIGCHI Bulletin, (20):51–55, 1989.Google Scholar
  65. [YW90]
    R.M. Young and J. Whittington. Using a knowledge analysis to predict conceptual errors in text-editor usage. In J.C. Chew and J. Whiteside, editors, CHI'90 Conference Proceedings, pages 91–97. Addison Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Harrison
    • 1
  • D. J. Duke
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Computer Interaction Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkHeslingtonUK

Personalised recommendations