David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics, Proceedings SIGGRAPH'89, Boston, MA, July, 1989, pp. 127-136.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....by writing Scheme scripts. Snapping operations are not used in SCWM, but adding the automatic snapping mechanism of HyperSnapping would be useful for easier manipulation of windows. To help users automate graphical editing tasks, many PBE systems for graphical drawing have been proposed. MetaMouse[8] is a system which infers the production rules implicit in the user s editing operations. Since it is difficult to get the user s intention only from the user s editing operations, MetaMouse frequently asks the user questions about why the user performed the operation, so that the system does not ....

D. L. Maulsby, I. H. Witten, and K. A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH'89, volume 23, pages 127--136, Boston, MA, July 1989.

....which triggers the constraint, such as object selection with the mouse. The designer initiates two system snapshots, before and after the change to the object (for example to make its text italic) The system then creates a constraint which makes the text of highlighted objects italic. Metamouse [Maul89] learns graphical procedures by example. The user first invokes a special teaching mode. Metamouse then watches the user perform graphical editing operations and uses generalization to identify the steps, loops, and branches in this procedure. Metamouse used the proximity of objects to reduce the ....

....procedure. Metamouse used the proximity of objects to reduce the amount of computation required for its inferencing. Metamouse is near sighted but touch sensitive. The user understands that relations at a dis 19 tance must be constructed, for example by using a line to demonstrate alignment [Maul89, page 128, end of first paragraph]. 5 Druid [Sing90] lets users attach simple functionality such as enabling, disabling, hiding and showing buttons. It is a user interface management system with demonstrational capabilities. It differs from Peridot and Lapidary in that the system is watching the designer perform interactions ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. In Proceedings of Siggraph, pages 127--136, (Boston, Massachusetts, July 31-August 4) 1989.

....can express a wider variety of behaviors than interface builders. Demonstrational systems have also proven popular for specifying the dynamic behavior of objects in an application. Examples include systems for creating user interfaces [41, 47, 32, 5] constructing drawings and animating them [18, 19], and creating HyperCard programs [4] These systems record the user s actions on example objects and then play them back at run time when an appropriate event is received. In some cases they attempt to generalize the sequences of actions to provide more abstract behaviors. For example, Demo [47] ....

....the sequences of actions to provide more abstract behaviors. For example, Demo [47] will create linear equations that relate elements of an event (e.g. rotating a dial on a gauge by 30 degrees) with elements of a response (e.g. updating a text box with the new value of the gauge) MetaMouse [18, 19] and Eager [4] try to detect repetitive actions and Lapidary 7 generalize the sequence of actions so that they are performed on all objects in a group. Marquise [32] concentrates on inferring the overall behavior of an application from demonstrations. Inference Bear [5] infers behavior from ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics, Proceedings SIGGRAPH'89, Boston, MA, July, 1989, pp. 127-136.

....objects by a finite number of examples. Previous GUI systems based on the programming by example paradigm have supported generalization from the examples provided by the designer. Specifically, Peridot [6] generalizes operations on a given list of user items, and both Eager [2] and Metamouse [5] perform loop synthesis of dynamic interactions performed by the user at run time. The Oak system performs loop synthesis at object construction time by generalizing on the number of repeated operations when it detects the repetition of the following pattern of commands: predefined library ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. ACM Computer Graphics, 23(3):127--136, July 1989.

....can also specify additional constraints on existing objects. Garnet helps the user interactively create user interfaces that let the user operate on graphic objects with the mouse and keyboard. The three landmark demonstrational constraint specification systems are Peridot [MYERS88] Metamouse [MAUL89], and [KURL91] Peridot is a system that infers graphical constraints automatically as objects are added to the scene. Peridot confirms all its inferences with the user, which gives the user hints about what the constraints present might be; however, the user still needs to understand thouroughly ....

Maulsby, David L., Witten, Ian H., and Kittlitz, Kenneth A. "Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example", SIGGRAPH '89 Proceedings, pp. 127-136, Aug. 1989.

....Our help method is valid even if the GUI elements are moved, since it does not have any dependence on these locations. RELATED WORK We often see applications, which record the user s action and use them. Macro is popular in editing tools, which may be operated for repetitive tasks. Metamouse (Maulsby 1989) and EAGER (Cypher 1991) detect a repetitive task and generate macros. Chimera (Kurlander and Feinter 1992) shows the generated macros with visual representation. For code generation, Peridot (Myres 1987) makes specification of direct manipulation interface from example actions. Such programming ....

Maulsby D. L., Witten I. H. and Kittlitz K. A., 1989, "Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example," In Proceedings SIGGRAPH '89, pages 127-136.

....where the system would have trouble making inferences. Most prior PBD systems provided absolutely no forms of annotation ability instead relying on plain unannotated examples, but some system did provide some annotation. Demo II provided guidewire objects borrowed from Maulsby s Metamouse [22]. Demo II and Metamouse used geometric graphics such as lines and rectangles to connect and show relationships between other objects. Other systems like NeXTStep [32] used objects to space out widgets and constrain how objects react to window resizing. Off screen objects are put into an ....

....see the object when the application is edited and can manipulate it directly. Gamut will use five kinds of annotation objects: playing cards, mode switches, guide objects, behavior icons, and temporal ghosts. The guide objects are borrowed from the guidewire objects in Demo II [5] and MetaMouse [22]. The others are new and will be tested in Gamut for the first time. The constraint objects as well as playing cards and mode switches will be objects the author must create and assemble to use in a game. The other abstractions, behavior icons and temporal ghosts, are visual devices the system ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. ACM Computer Graphics, Volume 23, Number 3, July 1989, pp 127-136. 25

....creating constrained models. Ours is not the first attempt to spare users from the additional effort required to explicitly specify constraints. Previous systems have attempted to infer relationships after drawing operations by looking at the resulting drawing[PW85] or at a trace of user actions[MKW89] Because this information typically does not specify the relationships unambiguously, these systems relied on heuristics or asked the user[MB86] to resolve the ambiguity. Our approach provides positioning methods which unambiguously specify constraints, eliminating the need for inferences. In ....

D. L. Maulsby, K. A. Kittlinz, and I. H. Witten. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. Computer Graphics, 1989.

....systems, entirely different approaches have also been taken to the general problem of user interface specification by non programmers. These include systems for visual specification of interfaces (see for example [Card88, Huds90] as well as a range of bydemonstration techniques (see for example [Myer86, Maul89, Cyph91, Huds93, Myer93]) which allow some forms of user interface appearance and behavior to be specified without programming using inference techniques. 9. Experience and Conclusions While it is too early to formally judge the performance of the system in the difficult realm of enduser programming (extensive user ....

Maulsby, D., Kittlitz, K. A., Witten, I. H., "Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example", Proceedings of CHI '89, April 1989, Austin TX, pp. 127136.

....is that the events being generated are low level, and so is the programmer s interface. RELATED WORK Commercial record and playback macro packages like Tempo II [11] and Microsoft s Recorder [8] work at the level of window system while most programming by demonstration systems like Metamouse [7], Eager [2] and Chimera [5] work at the interface level. Triggers [13] is a system wide macro facility on the Macintosh that generates keyboard and mouse events and uses pixel level pattern matching to obtain context. Cartoonist [17] is a context sensitive animated help system integrated with the ....

Maulsby, D.L., Witten, I.H., and Kittlitz, K.A. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example, in SIGGRAPH `89 Conference Proceedings (Jul-Aug, 1989), pp. 127-136.

....the user verify these inferences; and to obtain guidance from the user as to the salient features of the example over which to generalize. There are many forms that this feedback can take: dialog boxes (e.g. property sheets in SmallStar [5] questions and answers (e.g. Peridot [12] and Metamouse [10]) textual representation of the code (e.g. Tinker [8] meta character in the program area (e.g. the cat icon in Eager [3] animation (e.g. rehearsals in Rehearsal World [4] and sound (e.g. Mondrian [9] Our approach has several benefits over these forms of feedback. Unlike dialog boxes and ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying graphical procedures by example. In Computer Graphics, pages 127--135, Boston, Massachusetts, July 1989. ACM SIGGRAPH.

....information. It is difficult to present hidden dataflow structures with static representations. Animation makes it possible to visualize these invisible structures. Our graphical induction technique can be seen as an application of programming by demonstration example techniques [7] Metamouse [17] detects repetition in the user s graphical editing operations and suggests the next operation. Eager [6] analyzes a sequence of HyperCard operations and suggests the next set of operations. Chimera [14] and IMAGE [19] find appropriate geometric constraints from given graphical examples. 9 ....

Maulsby, D., Kittlitz, K. and Witten, I., Metamouse: specifying graphical procedures by example, in Proceedings of SIGGRAPH '89, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 127-136, 1989.

....each of the components should appear, including their ordering, the presentation of the author names, and their typesetting characteristics. The system then automatically creates formatted bibliography entries for other references in the database. 2.2. 7 Metamouse David Maulsby s Metamouse system [Maulsby89a] Maulsby89b] Maulsby93a] provides a macro by example capability for graphical editors. Metamouse works in conjunction with A.sq, a simple graphical editor that manipulates lines and boxes. The editor has a special teaching mode in which an iconic turtle jumps to the cursor location between ....

....interaction. Weitzman s Designer was supplied with a set of rules to enforce design goals [Weitzman86 ] Peridot s rules, written in Interlisp, infer geometric constraints among objects in an interface editor. Maulsby s Metamouse graphical editor infers graphical procedures by demonstration [Maulsby89a] Each program step is associated with a set of preconditions and postconditions to be met, which can include touch constraints. Vander Zanden developed a method of specifying graphical applications using constraint grammars to isolate the visual display from the data structures [Vander ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Maulsby, David L., Witten, Ian H., and Kittlitz, Kenneth A. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH `89 (Boston, MA, July 31-August 4, 1989). In Computer Graphics 23, 4 (July 1989). 127-136.

....and the other objects in the scene. As the user manipulates the object, it will gravitate towards the most likely constraint scenario. Rockit makes it easy to try other likely scenarios by simply pressing a key, causing the system to cycle through the most likely possibilities, as in [Gleicher 91, Maulsby Witten 89] One unique feature of Rockit is that it usually infers the desired constraint very quickly by using gravity fields to filter out unlikely possibilities. Users do not need to continually answer questions [Myers 88] produce multiple snapshots [Kurlander 91] or specify constructor objects [Bier ....

....is that it usually infers the desired constraint very quickly by using gravity fields to filter out unlikely possibilities. Users do not need to continually answer questions [Myers 88] produce multiple snapshots [Kurlander 91] or specify constructor objects [Bier 86, Gleicher 91, Maulsby 89, Maulsby Witten 89] In addition, the user does not need to specify the constraints explicitly as in many previous systems [Borning 86, Kalra 90, Nelson 85] Another unique feature of our system is that it allows developers to dynamically change the rule conditions and rule ordering that determine which constraints ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics, 23(3):127--136, July 1989. ACM SIGGRAPH'89 Conference Proceedings.

....domain specific rule base to guess relationships between objects, such as Peridot [8] and Druid [10] These systems can often infer relationships from a single example. Other systems that are not addressed are those that automate repetition by watching the user, such as Eager [1] and 2 Metamouse [7]. AIDE (in [2] is a proposed domain independent framework for this class of demonstrational system. PHILOSOPHY OF THE INFERENCE ENGINE Our inference engine is based on the following principles. It contains no domain knowledge. The design goal of the inference engine is to be useful for a ....

Maulsby, D., I. Witten and K. Kittlitz, Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example, Proceedings of Siggraph'89, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 127-136.

....editable. AppleScript does not correspond to all application running on Macintosh. Jedemo systems are intended for general Java applets and applications. There are many applications which record user s operation and use it. The most popular usage for the operation is a macro facility. Metamouse[5] and EAGER[3] have a facility of generating macros from repetitive tasks. Chimera[4] represents macros like comic strip. For code generation, Peridot[6] makes specification of direct manipulation interface from example actions. Such programming by demonstration example systems are powerful for ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. In Proceedings SIGGRAPH '89, pages 127-- 136, 1989.

....Demonstation (PBD) also known as Programming By Example, is the creation of programs in the user interface by demonstrating what should do the program, rather than writing a program in a text editor. The most famous PBD systems are Pygmalion [13] SmallStar#[3] Eager [1] Mondrian [5] Metamouse [7], and Peridot [8] The demonstrations and examples are performed by the user and a PBD system tries to generalize them. This first definition of PBD seems to be quite utopian, we would readily like to propose a user interface adapting itself and evolving according to the user s needs [15] an ....

Maulsby. D. , K. Kittlitz & I. Witten. "Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example", in Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 89, Vol. 23, No. 3, ACM, Boston, August 1989, pp. 127-136.

....a modest amount of additional code which combines these. PROGRAMMING BY DEMONSTRATION We shortly review previous work. Peridot [9] supports designing scrollbars, buttons, choice boxes and similar objects by demonstration. Lapidary [10] focuses on creating application specific objects. Metamouse [8] learns graphical procedures by example. Druid [13] lets users attach simple functionality such as enabling, disabling, hiding and showing to buttons. Eager [1] watches users perform operations and detects and automates repetition. DEMO [14,2] uses a stimulus response paradigm for demonstrating ....

.... Geometric Relations Internals Search Space Reduction Internals Is RuleBased Internals Temporary Behavior Storage Internals Output Peridot [9] 1987 Yes (Query) Yes No Low None Yes Snapshots One Way Constraints Lapidary [10] 1989 No Yes No Low None No Snapshots One Way Constraints Metamouse [8] 1989 Yes (Prediction) No No Medium Explicit a (Aux. Objs) No not applicable Graphical Procedure Druid b [13] 1990 No Yes No None None No Event Recording Script Eager [1] 1991 Yes (Prediction) No not applicable not applicable not applicable No Event Recording Macro DEMO [2,14] 1991 92 No ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Maulsby, D., I. Witten and K. Kittlitz, Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example, Proceedings of Siggraph'89, pp. 127-136.

....on making it more conversational, especially offering advice on the degree of constraint to the designer and detecting and warning of redundant and circular constraints. We would also like to provide a graphical way to compose and edit inference rules. Metamouse is a 2 D drawing program [Maulsby89] that induces picture editing procedures from execution traces of the users actions at work it performs a localized analysis of changes in spatial relationships to isolate constraints and matches action sequences to build a state graph that describes what it has learned. On detecting a ....

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: specifying graphical procedures by example. In Computer Graphics, volume 23, pages 127--136. ACM, July 1989.

....advisors. Reality is a bit behind, but prototype intelligent agents have been implemented by researchers. For example, Eager (Cypher, 1991) detects and automates a user s repetitive actions in HyperCard; it matches examples by parsing text strings and by testing numerical relationships. Metamouse (Maulsby, 1989) learns drawing tasks from demonstrations; it applies rules to find significant graphical constraints. Yet today s agents are intelligent in the narrowest sense of the word. They understand only specialized or highly structured task domains, and lack flexibility in conversing with users. Kay ....

D. Maulsby, K.A. Kittlitz, I.H. Witten (1989) "Metamouse: specifying graphical procedures by example." Proc. SIGGRAPH '89, pp. 127-136.

No context found.

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics, Proceedings SIGGRAPH'89, Boston, MA, July, 1989, pp. 127-136.

No context found.

David L. Maulsby, Ian H. Witten, and Kenneth A. Kittlitz. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics, Proceedings SIGGRAPH'89, Boston, MA, July, 1989, pp. 127-136.

No context found.

Maulsby, D.L., Witten, I.H., and Kittlitz, K.A. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics 23, 3 (July 1989), 127--136, ACM SIGGRAPH '89 Conference Proceedings.

No context found.

Maulsby, D.L., Witten, I.H., and Kittlitz, K.A. 1989. Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example. Computer Graphics 23 (3).

No context found.

Maulsby,D.L., Witten,I.H, Kittlitz,K.A. (1989) "Metamouse: Specifying Graphical Procedures by Example", Computer Graphics, Vol.23, No.3, pp.127-136.

First 50 documents

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