Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'90, Snowbird, Utah, Oct., 1990, pp. 167-177.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the application description, which MIKE and UIDE have, and an interactive layout editor, which MIKE and UofA have. We are currently working to remedy this shortcoming. Perhaps the ultimate interactive interface for design should also build on demonstrational systems like Lapidary [10] and Druid [19]. These systems allow the designer to specify the presentation and the behavior of an interface by example. Designers draw the interface as the user will see it, and then demonstrate the actions that users can perform, by graphically manipulating the presentation. These systems generalize the ....

G. Singh, C. H. Kok and T. Y. Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings UIST'90. October 1990, pp. 167177.

....may be associated with a single application. One of the oldest examples of a UIMS for graphical interfaces is MIKE [11] Unfortunately, UIMSs still require many callback routines which add to the complexity of the application. In an e ort to reduce the burden of callbacks in a UIMS, Druid [14] uses a demonstration phase to teach the system valid interactions amongst the components. Similarly, the Gilt system [9] introduces a number of mechanisms including demonstration to reduce callbacks. With a UIMS, once the UI has been generated it is dicult (or in most cases impossible) to ....

G. Singh, C. Kok, and T. Ngan. Druid: A system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, October 1990.

....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 over time rather than ....

....centered relative to an existing one by checking their attributes named, say, x pos , y pos , width and height . Similarly, another rule can check if a new object is left aligned by checking if the values of their attributes named x pos are similar. For example, Peridot [Myer88] and Druid [Sing90] have taken this approach. 179 A possible domain independent approach is to instead check if the attributes of the new object can be computed from a linear combination of existing variables. This was our approach. Other systems of a similar nature are Demo [Wolb91] and GITS [Olse90] We will ....

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: A system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 167--177, (Snowbird, Utah, October 3-5) 1990. 264

....interface to be specified pictorially. 2.1 Interface Builders There have been a large number of systems that allow users to select items from a pre defined library of widgets, and position them on the screen. Some of these, including Menulay [2] Trillium [7] DialogEditor [3] vu [40] Druid [41], Gilt [28] and the NeXT Interface Builder [35] provide a graphical editor that allows the position and size of each widget to be specified in a direct manipulation manner using a mouse. Often, these systems allow a few limited properties to be changed using a dialog box. Lapidary also provides ....

....not inextricably bundled with a widget) and, consequently, 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 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'90, Snowbird, Utah, Oct., 1990, pp. 167-177.

....grammars(Payne Green 1989) while theoretically executable have difficulty expressing the concurrency required to specify direct manipulation interfaces. Other methods of executable specification are rule based systems such as UIDE(Gieskens Foley 1992) and by demonstration as in Druid(Singh, Kok Ngan 1990). Rule based systems divide the interactions between components into separate rules. This makes it very difficult to understand system behavior for non trivial systems. Systems that create interfaces by demonstration generally do not have a visual representation of the interface behavior, although ....

Singh, G., Kok, C. & Ngan T. (1990) Druid: a system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 167-177.

....and the NeXT Interface Builder [Webster89] The GINA interface builder differs from many systems because it is based on a standard toolkit instead of defining its own set of interface objects. It offers special support for the Motif architecture. In this respect it is similar to Druid [Singh90b], which is also based on Motif, and OSU [Lewis89] which uses the Macintosh Toolbox. The basic interaction facilities of the Motif widgets are restricted by the predefined parameters of the individual widget classes. There is no easy way to define new interaction techniques such as in Peridot ....

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, Teng Ye Ngan, Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development, Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Snowbird, Utah, Oct. 3-5, 1990), pp. 167-177

....where IOs could be created, placed and modified according to the designer s point of view. Such strategies also include placement by demonstration : Peridot (Myers, 1988) attempts to establish left, right, upper or bottom justification of IOs by using global rules defined by demonstration. Druid (Singh, 1990) and Excel s Dialog Editor (Microsoft, 1992) both place IOs according to the implied current design situation. If the designer creates a first label, it is placed automatically with some margins. If an edit box should be added, it will be automatically placed on the right of the label with some ....

Singh, G., Kok, C.H., Ngan, T.Y. (Oct 1990), "Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development", Proc. of UIST'90, ACM Press, pp. 167-177.

....Peridot and Metamouse also use this technique to neaten and generalize the pictures by detecting graphical properties of objects so that users can draw objects quickly and sloppily. Lapidary lets designers create application specific graphical objects by demonstration without programming. Druid [61] tries to guess the alignment of predefined widgets when the user places them in a user interface. Recently, there have been some attempts [62, 63] to develop complete interfaces based on demonstration. 4.1.3 Model Based Tools We have seen that UIMSs use methods such as special purpose languages ....

G.Singh, C.H.Kok, and T.Y.Ngan, "Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development," Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, New York, 1990, pp.167-177.

....Visualization System [Scholl 85] used heuristics to allow artists to automatically transform drawings according to the rule selected by the artist. The system allowed the exploration of new artistic concepts, but it required the user to select which rule to apply. Peridot [Myers 88] and Druid [Singh 90] both store simple rules about the relationships between objects in graphical user interfaces. Even though they use inferencing to choose a rule, both require the user to continually answer questions to decide if the inferred rule is the correct one to apply. By automatically inferring ....

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: a System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings of UIST'90, pages 167--177, Snowbird, UT, October 1990. ACM Press.

....roughly falls into this class, but has no notion of time it uses valid states rather than before and after states. Demonstrational systems not addressed by our engine include those that use a 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 ....

Singh, G., C. Kok and T. Ngan, Druid: A System For Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development, Proceedings of UIST'90, Snowbird, Utah, Oct. 1990, pp. 167-177.

....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 the behavior of graphical objects. Chimera [7] infers ....

....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 Yes Yes High Explicit (Aux. Objs) Yes (DEMO II) Compressed Snapshots Response Description Chimera [7] 1991 No No No ....

Singh, G., C. Kok and T. Ngan, Druid: A System For Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development, Proceedings of UIST'90, Snowbird, Utah, Oct. 1990, pp. 167-177.

....rule system to make its inferences. SILK is similar in that it uses a rule system to infer the widgets, which have previously defined behaviors. Other demonstrational 128 CHAPTER 7. RELATED WORK user interface tools that have followed in the Peridot tradition include Lapidary [Myers 1989] Druid [Singh 1990], Demo [Wolber 1991; Fisher 1992] and Marquise [Myers 1993] One of the major complaints about Peridot was that it confirmed its inferences by asking questions. One of the principles behind SILK s design is that the inferences of the system should be kept out of the designer s way until they have ....

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok and Teng Ye Ngan. "Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development". Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST '90, Snowbird, UT, October, 1990. pp. 167-177.

....Understandable User Interface Specifications A final technique used for specifying human computer dialog is to do so by demonstration. Using this technique the designer places widgets on the screen demonstrating state changes, and the system makes inferences about the intended design. Druid [30] and Peridot [20] are two systems which build user interfaces by demonstration. Druid provides for interactive layout and dialog definition. However, its dialog model does not include constraints between interface objects or the modification of interface objects. Peridot is a similar system ....

Singh, Gurminder, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan, "Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development", Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1990, pp. 167-177.

....dimension generally goes in the opposite direction. Low expressivity tools like interface builders are easy to use, and high expressivity tools like programming languages or object oriented frameworks are hard to use. Demonstrational Tools Demonstrational tools such as Lapidary [5] and Druid [10] are an attempt to move up the expressivity spectrum while remaining in the high end of the usability spectrum. Lapidary, for instance, lets designers demonstrate examples of a boxes and arrows application where the arrows should remain attached to the boxes, and constructs box and arrow ....

G. Singh, C. H. Kok and T. Y. Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings UIST'90. October 1990, pp. 157-177.

....falls into this class, but has no notion of time it uses valid states rather than before and after states. 2 Demonstrational systems not addressed by our engine include those that use a 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 Metamouse [7] AIDE (in [2] is a proposed domain independent framework for this class of demonstrational ....

Singh, G., Kok, C. and Ngan, T. Druid: A System For Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings of UIST'90 (Oct. 3-5, Snowbird, Utah), ACM, N.Y., 1990, pp. 167-177.

....systems which are similar to the precondition post condition method. A final technique used for specifying human computer dialog is to do so by demonstration. Using this technique the designer places widgets on the screen, and the system makes inferences about the intended design. Druid [Singh et al. 1990] and Peridot [Myers, 1988] are two systems which build user interfaces by demonstration. Druid provides for interactive layout and dialog definition. However, its dialog model does not include constraints between interface objects or the modification of interface objects. Peridot is a similar ....

Singh, G., Kok, C. H., and Ngan, T. Y. 1990. Druid: a system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 167-177.

....shapes [11] The Visualization System [26] used heuristics to allow artists to automatically transform drawings according to the rule selected by the artist. The system allowed the exploration of new artistic concepts, but it required the user to select which rule to apply. Peridot [20] and Druid [27] both store simple rules about the relationships between objects in graphical user interfaces. Even though they use inferencing to choose a rule, both require the user to continually answer questions to decide if the inferred rule is the correct one to apply. By automatically inferring constraints ....

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: a System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings of UIST'90, pages 167--177, Snowbird, UT (October 1990). ACM Press.

....by the event. By default, DEVI only tries to infer constraints between selected objects and newly created or newly perturbed objects a newly created object is added to the current selection. This limits the number of inferences the system has to consider. Experience with the Druid UIMS [Singh90] shows that designers tend to create designs incrementally they usually create related parts of the design one after the other, rather than randomly. DEVI exploits this fact. In case it makes more than one inference, it prompts the user to make Figure 1: DEVI s User Interface The top left ....

Gurminder Singh, ChunHong Kok, and TengYe Ngan. Druid: A system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. In UIST 90, pages 167--177. ACM, October 1990.

No context found.

Gurminder Singh, Chun Hong Kok, and Teng Ye Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'90, Snowbird, Utah, Oct., 1990, pp. 167-177.

No context found.

G. Singh, C. H. Kok, and T. Y. Ngan. Druid: A system for demonstrational rapid user interface development. In Proc. of the 3rd Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'90), pages 167--177, Snowbird, UT, 1990.

No context found.

Singh 90 G. Singh, C. H. Kok, and T. Y. Ngan. Druid: A system for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1990 Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '90), 1990, pp.167-177.

No context found.

G. Singh, C.H. Kok and T.Y. Ngan. Druid: A System for Demonstrational Rapid User Interface Development. In Proceedings UIST'90, 1990, pp. 142-146.

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