Using Model Checking for the Automatic Validation of User Interfaces Systems

d’Ausbourg, Bruno

doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-3693-5_16

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [7], the authors present derivation of possible interactions from an informal description of the interactive system. These derived interactions are used to model a formal model of the interactive system for checking and validating the required HMI behaviour of interactive system, and for generating the test cases [8]. A modelling language, LIDL (LIDL Interaction Description Language), is proposed in [20] to describe a formal description of possible interaction of HMI.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Development of Multi-Purpose Interactive Application (MPIA) for ARINC 661

Singh

Aït‐Ameur

Méry

et al. 2020

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports our experience for developing Human-Machine Interface (HMI) complying with ARINC 661 specification standard for interactive cockpits applications using formal methods. This development relies on the FLUID modelling language, we have proposed and formally defined in the FORMEDICIS 1 project. FLUID contains essential features required for specifying HMI. To develop the MultiPurpose Interactive Applications (MPIA) use case, we follow the following steps: an abstract model of MPIA is written using the FLUID language; this MPIA FLUID model is used to produce an Event-B model for checking the functional behaviour, user interactions, safety properties, and interaction related to domain properties; the Event-B model is also used to check temporal properties and possible scenario using the ProB model checker; and finally, the MPIA FLUID model is translated to Interactive Cooperative Objects (ICO) using the PetShop CASE tool to validate the dynamic behaviour, visual properties and task analysis. These steps rely on different tools to check internal consistency along with possible HMI properties. Finally, the formal development of the MPIA case study using FLUID and its embedding into other formal techniques, demonstrates reliability, scalability and feasibility of our approach defined in the FORMEDICIS project.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Development of Multi-Purpose Interactive Application (MPIA) for ARINC 661

Singh

Aït‐Ameur

Méry

et al. 2020

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interface-based methods use the human-machine interface as the system model (Bowen & Reeves, 2009;d'Ausbourg, 1998;Memon, Pollack, & Lou Soffa, 2001). In such methods, coverage criteria is asserted over a formal model of the interface.…”

Section: Generating Test Cases For Human-machine Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task-based Automated Test Case Generation for Human-machine Interaction

Bolton

2019

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing is an effective approach for finding discrepancies between intended and actual system behavior. However, the complexity of modern system can make it difficult for analysts to anticipate all the interactions that need to be tested. This is particularly true for human-interactive systems where humans may do things that were not anticipated by analysts. We address this by introducing a novel approach to automated test case generation for human-machine interaction. We do this by combining formal models of human-machine interfaces with formal models of human task behavior. We then use the robust search capabilities of model checking to generate test sequences guaranteed to satisfy test coverage criteria. We demonstrate the capabilities of our approach with of a pod-based coffee machine. Results and future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…This representation makes it possible to target several formal veriÞcation techniques. Indeed, to encode task models as labelled transition systems, Petri Nets [20], process algebra, based on the LOTOS with CTT and CTTE [12,21], state based methods with B and Event-B [22,23] or Z [24], model checking and temporal logics by [25][26][27], etc., are some of the approaches that have been proposed in the literature so far. These approaches show the attention carried out by research to the problem of formal modeling and ver-iÞcation of task models for both WIMP or post-WIMP user interfaces.…”

Section: Formal Modeling and Veriþcation Of User Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

A formal model for plastic human computer interfaces

Chebieb

Aït‐Ameur

2018

Front. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The considerable and signiÞcant progress achieved in the design and development of new interaction devices between man and machine has enabled the emergence of various powerful and efficient input and/or output devices. Each of these new devices brings speciÞc interaction modes. With the emergence of these devices, new interaction techniques and modes arise and new interaction capabilities are offered. New user interfaces need to be designed or former ones need to evolve. The design of so called plastic user interfaces contributes to handling such evolutions. The key requirement for the design of such a user interface is that the new obtained user interface shall be adapted to the application and have, at least, the same behavior as the previous (adapted) one. This paper proposes to address the problem of user interface evolution due to the introduction of new interaction devices and/or new interaction modes. More, precisely, we are interested by the study of the design process of a user interface resulting from the evolution of a former user interface due to the introduction of new devices and/or new interaction capabilities. We consider that interface behaviors are described by labelled transition systems and comparison between user interfaces is handled by an extended deÞnition of the bi-simulation relationship to compare user interface behaviors when interaction modes are replaced by new ones.

show abstract

Using Model Checking for the Automatic Validation of User Interfaces Systems

Cited by 16 publications

References 1 publication

Formal Development of Multi-Purpose Interactive Application (MPIA) for ARINC 661

Formal Development of Multi-Purpose Interactive Application (MPIA) for ARINC 661

Task-based Automated Test Case Generation for Human-machine Interaction

A formal model for plastic human computer interfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About