Eisenberg, M. (1995). Programmable Applications: Interpreter meets Interface. In SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(2), pp.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....(black boxes) Computer applications, on the other hand, have a greater potential for modifiability because they are built out of dynamic building blocks (software programs) that can be changed by rewriting the program code. RELATED WORK Programmable Applications Programmable applications [5] and design environments [6, 9] are classes of computational environments that give an end user support in modifying and extending these environments. Modifiability is supported by access to highlevel, domain oriented building blocks (analogous to LEGO bricks) and extensibility is supported by ....

Eisenberg, M. Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface. TDB8CD7yyr#v27, 2 (1995), 68-83.

....authorization functionality in the form of scripts that make common sitespecific procedures quick and easy. These scripts could also allow sharing of customizations or policy information within an organization [32] In the tradition of fourth generation languages [29] and domain specific languages [17] our Authorization Language has constructs particularly suited to manipulating authorization constructs. Full specification and examples of the Adage GUI and Authorization Language can be found in [1] The primary Adage management clients are the VPB, the AL Console, and the RALP (Remote AL ....

M. Eisenberg. "Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface." SIGCHI, Vol. 27, Num. 2, April 1995.

....Reasoning, Interfaces for Knowledge Based Systems. 1. INTRODUCTION Academia and industry alike have recognized the need to create extensible software in order to allow users to tailor applications to their particular needs and alleviate the programming effort involved in software upgrades [2, 7, 8, 19, 20]. Nevertheless, most extension mechanisms to date have focused primarily on the automation of repetitive tasks (through different techniques, such as macro recording and programming by demonstration [3] or on extensions that involve the use of script and programming languages. Commercially ....

Eisenberg, M. (1995). "Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface". SIGCHI Bulletin. Apr. Vol. 27(2), ACM Press.

....environments have suffered from the lack of an end user programming language. In an attempt to make these programs usable by non programmers, developers of design environments have adopted the model of direct manipulation applications. However, such systems are ultimately limited, as argued by Eisenberg (1991). The developers of Janus have recognized this and added an end user modification capability (Fischer, et al., 1990) Unfortunately, this capability is limited to certain components of the system and requires knowledge of Lisp. By contrast, the inference language described here pervades the ....

Eisenberg, M. (1991). Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface.

.... kind of programming substrates that I am interested in should provide a versatile construction paradigm to build dynamic, visual tools for problem domains such as: Artificial Life Environments [59] Visual Programming Languages [12, 26, 41, 45, 58, 62, 79, 106] Programmable Drawing Tools [23] . Simulation Environments [24, 107, 113, 117] 37 . Games [54] Complex Cellular Automata [112] Spreadsheet Extensions [33, 55, 68, 81, 84, 90, 108] All these domains have the following characteristics in common: They are visual: Certain pertinent aspects of applications in these ....

....46 . Programmable Direct Manipulation: Programmable direct manipulation goes beyond direct manipulation by supporting the creation of new program fragments and linking them to a predefined sign of interaction (e.g. a mouse click) by the user on the fly (while using the system) SchemePaint [23] is an example of a so called programmable application utilizing programmable direct manipulation. A consequence of reactive interaction schemes is that the computer is not doing anything unless told to do so by the user. Proactive interaction schemes, on the other hand, can take the initiative ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Eisenberg, M., "Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface," A.I. Memo, 1325, MIT, 1991.

....Timeliness also distinguishes PAVES from inherently offline video programming environments, such as VideoScheme [8] PAVES is also notable for its support of multiple view editing. It allows graphical and textual programming methods to be used in combination, as do applications such as SchemePaint [3]. Its synchronization and free interchange between textual and graphical methods, however, match the generality of generic multi view frameworks such as MViews [4] and take them a step further with a cooperative model that spans interactive and traditional development cycles. Finally, PAVES has ....

Michael Eisenberg. Programmable Applications: Interpreter Meets Interface. Technical Report AI Memo 1325, MIT, October 1991.

.... of end user programming, providing greater control over semantic features of the application, which are generally not directly expressed in the interface (Bentley and Dourish, 1995) Notable examples include the work of Nardi (1993) in a variety of domains, Cypher and Smith (1995) with KidSim and Eisenberg (1995) with SchemePaint. 1.6 Flexibility and Tailorability in CSCW Systems and Toolkits A number of researchers have investigated similar issues of flexibility and tailorability in the domain of multiuser, rather than single user, interfaces. Greenberg (1991) follows most closely in the tradition of ....

Eisenberg, M. (1995). "Programmable Applications: Interpreter meets Interface", SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(2), pp.

No context found.

Eisenberg, M. (1995). Programmable Applications: Interpreter meets Interface. In SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(2), pp.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC