Formal Models for Informal GUI Designs

Bowen, Judy; Reeves, Steve

doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2007.01.061

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The syntax and semantics of these models, along with descriptions of their use, can be found in [BR06a] and [BR06b], however we provide a brief description of them here for clarity. Presentation models describe a UI in terms of its component widgets.…”

Section: Formal Models Of Uismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[BR06b], [BR06a]. This UI functionality will not be included in the early requirements as it does not relate to considerations of what the system will do, but describes how the user will interact with the system and the experience of interacting.…”

Section: Refinement and Uismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our presentation models and PIMs enable us to formalise design artefacts and start to integrate these with a formal system specification (we provide full details on this in [BR07b]). However, for refinement purposes we would like to be able to describe UI || Sys using a common formalism.…”

Section: Composing the Ui And Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time we can ensure that our interface designs reflect the requirements of both the user and the overall system by incorporating them into a formal design process. We have previously derived a way of integrating UI designs into a formal software development process by way of formal models, [BR06a] and [BR06b], which ensure that the UI and system designers are working towards the same end goal. Such models also allow us to prove properties about the design itself, including consideration of usability properties [BR07a].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Refinement for user interface designs

Bowen

Reeves

2009

Form. Asp. Comput.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Formal approaches to software development require that we correctly describe (or specify) systems in order to prove properties about our proposed solution prior to building it. We must then follow a rigorous process to transform our specification into an implementation to ensure that the properties we have proved are retained. Different transformation, or refinement, methods exist for different formal methods, but they all seek to ensure that we can guide the transformation in a way which preserves the desired properties of the system. Refinement methods also allow us to subsequently compare two systems to see if a refinement relation exists between the two. When we design and build the user interfaces of our systems we are similarly keen to ensure that they have certain properties before we build them. For example, do they satisfy the requirements of the user? Are they designed with known good design principles and usability considerations in mind? Are they correct in terms of the overall system specification? However, when we come to implement our interface designs we do not have a defined process to follow which ensures that we maintain these properties as we transform the design into code. Instead, we rely on our judgement and belief that we are doing the right thing and subsequent user testing to ensure that our final solution remains useable and satisfactory. We suggest an alternative approach, which is to define a refinement process for user interfaces which will allow us to maintain the same rigorous standards we apply to the rest of the system when we implement our user interface designs.

show abstract

Section: Formal Models Of Uismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Refinement and Uismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Composing the Ui And Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Refinement for user interface designs

Bowen

Reeves

2009

Form. Asp. Comput.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UCD considers the end-user at all stages of development to ensure that technology is appropriate, functional and useful to complete tasks (Bowen and Reeves, 2007). Better geo-visualization tools can be created through a usability approach and with knowledge of cognitive processes (Slocum et al, 2001).…”

Section: Usability Engineering and User-testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating web-based static, animated and interactive maps for injury prevention

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Public health planning can benefit from visual exploration and analysis of geospatial data. Maps and geovisualization tools must be developed with the user-group in mind. User-needs assessment and usability testing are crucial elements in the iterative process of map design and implementation. This study presents the results of a usability test of static, animated and interactive maps of injury rates and socio-demographic determinants of injury by a sample of potential end-users in Toronto, Canada. The results of the user-testing suggest that different map types are useful for different purposes and for satisfying the varying skill level of the individual user. The static maps were deemed to be easy to use and versatile, while the animated maps could be made more useful if animation controls were provided. The split-screen concept of the interactive maps was highlighted as particularly effective for map comparison. Overall, interactive maps were identified as the preferred map type for comparing patterns of injury and related socio-demographic risk factors. Information collected from the user-tests is being used to expand and refine the injury web maps for Toronto, and could inform other public health-related geo-visualization projects.

show abstract

A Survey of Papers from Formal Methods for Interactive Systems (FMIS) Workshops

Béger

Leriche

Prun

2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our research team is specialized in human-computer systems and their engineering, with focus on interactive software systems for aeronautics (from cockpits to control towers). This context stands out by the need for certification, such as DO-178 or ED-12. Today, formal methods are pushed forward, as one of the best tools to achieve the verification and validation of properties, leading to the certification of these systems. Interactive systems are reactive computer systems that process information from their environment and produce a representation of their internal state. They offer new rich interfaces with sophisticated interactions. Their certification is a challenge, because the validation is often a human based process since traditional formal tools are not always suitable to the verification of graphical properties in particular. In this paper, we explore the scientific work that has been done in formal methods for interactive systems over the last decade, in a systematic study of publications in the International Workshop on Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. We describe an analytical framework that we apply to classify the studied work into classes of properties and used formalisms. We then discuss the emerging findings, mainly the lack of papers addressing the formal specification or validation of perceptibility properties. We conclude with an overview of our future work in this area.

show abstract

Formal Models for Informal GUI Designs

Cited by 28 publications

References 14 publications

Refinement for user interface designs

Refinement for user interface designs

Evaluating web-based static, animated and interactive maps for injury prevention

A Survey of Papers from Formal Methods for Interactive Systems (FMIS) Workshops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About