1 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09 Towards Canonical Task Types for User Interface...
-
Upload
donna-norma-green -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09 Towards Canonical Task Types for User Interface...
1 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Towards Canonical Task Types for User Interface Design
Juan Manuel Gonzalez-Calleros, Josefina Guerrero-García, Jean Vanderdonckt and Jaime Muñoz-Arteaga
Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain School of Management (LSM)
Information Systems Unit (ISYS)[email protected]
Sistemas de Información Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
2 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions 4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
3 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Introduction
• The task model is today a cornerstone of many activities carried out during the User Interface (UI) development life cycle, such as, but not limited to: – user-centred design, – task analysis – task modelling– model-driven engineering of user interfaces– human activity analysis– safety critical systems– real-time systems.
4 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Model-driven engineering of user interfaces
Environment T
Final userInterface T
Concrete userInterface T
Task and Domain T
Abstract userInterface T
T=Target context of use
Concrete userInterface S
Final userInterface S
Task and Domain S
Abstract userInterface S
S=Source context of use
Reification
Abstraction
Reflexion
Translation
http://www.plasticity.org
UsiXMLunsupported
model
UsiXMLsupported
model
User S Platform S Environment S Platform TUser T
5 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Introduction
• The many degrees of freedom offered by task modelling should not let us to forget the quality of the resulting task model.
• Labels, definitions, goals, and properties used for a task suffer from many drawbacks– Limited:
•completeness in task modeling•consistency in task modeling•correctness in task modeling
Introduction
• Modelling a task based on well-defined semantics and using a well-understood notation are key aspects.
• A list of canonical task types is proposed that addresses the aforementioned concerns of task modelling.
• Our goal is to provide methodological means to systematically derive UI.
• The list is just about the name of the task and properties and not its structure, thus remaining flexible for task modelling.
6 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
7 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions 4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
8 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
State of the art
• Several MBUI development methods rely on attributes that describe the User Interface interaction ([Frank 1993] [Paternò 2002][Puerta 1997] ...)
• The User Interface interaction is composed of two elements: – The task type sometimes referred as UI action or activity
– The task item, as proposed by [Constantine 2002], that is manipulated or required in the UI interaction.
9 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
State of the art
• Task Types Name spaces have been created in different research domains:• Graphical User
Interfaces• Web Interaction• Input Devices
10 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
State of the art
• Some taxonomies of task Types are very much related to interaction devices [Foley 1984]
SELECTION
S1 From screen with direct pick device S1.1 Light pen S1.2 Touch pane; S2 Indirect with cursor match S2.1 Tablet S2.2 Mouse S2.3 Joystick (absolute) S2.4 Joystick (velocity) S2.5 Trackball S2.6 Cursor control keys S3 With character string name (See text input) S4 Time scan S4.1 Programmed function keyboard S4.2 Alphanumeric keyboard S5 Button Push S5.1 Programmed function keyboard S5.2 Soft keys S6 Sketch recognition S6.1 Tablet and stylus S6.2 Light pen S7 Voice input S7.1 Voice recognizer P1 Direct with locator device P1.1 Touch panel P2 Indirect with locator device P2.1 Tablet P2.2 Mouse P2.3 Joystick (absolute) P2.4 Joystick (velocity-controlled) P2.5 Trackball P2.6 Cursor control keys with auto-repeat P3 Indirect with directional commands P3.1 Up-down-left-right arrow keys (See selection) P4 With numerical coordinates (See text input) P5 Direct with pick device P5.1 Light pen tracking P5.2 Search for light pen O1 Indirect with locator device O1.1 Joystick (absolute) O1.2 Joystick (velocity-controlled) O2 With numerical value (See text input) Q1 Direct with valuator device Q1.1 Rotary potentiometer Q1.2 Linear potentiometer Q2 With character string value (See text input) Q3 Scale drive with one axis of locator device Q3.1 Tablet Q3.2 Mouse Q3.3 Joystick (absolute) Q3.4 Joystick (velocity-controlled) Q3.5 Trackball Q4 Light handle Q4.1 Light pen Q4.2 Tablet with stylus Q5 Up-down count controlled by commands Q5.1 Programmed function keyboard Q5.2 Alphanumeric keyboard T1 Keyboard T1.1 Alphanumeric T1.2 Chord T2 Stroked character recognition T2.1 Tablet with stylus T3 Voice recognition T3.1 Voice recognizer T4 Direct pick from menu with locator device T4.1 Light pen T4.2 Touch panel T5 Indirect pick from menu with locator device (See positioning)
POSITION
ORIENT
QUANTIFY
TEXT
11 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
State of the art
• Shortcomings:• Always dependency between the name space
and the modality of interaction• Cognitive tasks• Gestures• Feedback• System Functionalities
12 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
13 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
A comparative analysis of User Interface Actions
• More than two hundred names were identified.
14 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
A comparative analysis of User Interface Actions
• Comparative analysis on the name spaces• Comparing names• Context of use • Definitions
• Group task types with similar definitions but different names (choose, select, …)
• Determine which was the most abstract set of task considering• Modality and platform independent
A comparative analysis of User Interface Actions
15 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
16 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art 3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
Practical Use of the canonical list of task types
17 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
1. Help to decide how to name a task
For example, for a multimodal task
Practical Use of the canonical list of task types
18 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
2. Selection of task type and task item
Practical Use of the canonical list of task types
19 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
3. Selection of user categories
4. User Interface Concretization of the Task
20 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Practical Use of the canonical list of task types
Concrete userInterface S
Final userInterface S
Task and Domain S
Abstract userInterface S
Task Type + Action Item
Facet
Select + Element
Input
Concrete Interaction Object
Selection Widget
Practical Use of the canonical list of task types
21 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
5. User Interface Concretization of the Task based on tables for selecting widgets based on semantic properties
22 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art 3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions 4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
Case Study
23 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
• An Information System of a Travel Agency for organizing a trip
• The scenario and the requirements of the problem are captured in a workflow using FlowiXML [Guerrero 2008]
Case Study
24 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
• Tasks in the process are detailed using task models
Case Study
25 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
• Attributes identified for the tasks
Task Task Type
Task Item
User category
Facet
Insert Name Create Element Interactive Input
Insert Zip Code Create Element Interactive Input
Select Age category
Select Element Interactive Input
Select Gender Select Element Interactive Input
Case Study
26 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
User Interface Action Types Facet Specification Information to take into account Possible Abstract Interaction Component
“create name” and “create zip Code” Create attribute value Data type, domain characteristics A text output with a text input associated to it
“select gender and select age Category”
Select attribute value + selection values known
Data type, domain characteristics, selection values
A dropdown list, a group of radio buttons textual or characters.
27 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Outline
1. Introduction2. State of the Art 3. A comparative analysis of User Interface
Actions 4. Practical Use of the canonical list of task
types5. Case Study6. Conclusion
Conclusion
• A list of canonical UI task action types associated to task models was presented.
• This proposal overcomes the limitations of task modeling in the context of MDE UI development
• The proposal provides methodological means to systematically derive UI.
• This work is focused on task modeling specifications and UsiXML
28 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
Conclusion
• Future Work– Investigate task relationships – Evaluation of this technique– Multimodal and Multidevice concretization
what if the task is no longer available
29 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09
For more information and downloading,http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/bchi
http://www.usixml.orgUser Interface eXtensible Markup Language
http://itea.defimedia.be/usixml-france ITEA2 Call 3 project (2008026)
Special thanks to all members of the team!
Thank you very much for your attention