S. E. Hudson and S. P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Trans. on Info. Sys., 8(3):269--288, July 1990.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... a spreadsheet , its similarity to spreadsheets is limited to data propagation and textual formulas, and therefore is more accurately termed formbased [45, page 4] 20 Spreadsheets for User Interface Design Two notable systems designed for user interface specification are the Penguims system [49, 48], and the C32 spreadsheet [67] in the Garnet toolkit [68] The purpose of both systems is to enable user interface programmers to specify complex constraints among user interface elements by using equations in cells. The Penguims system does not strictly conform to a grid, but instead organizes ....

Scott E. Hudson and Shamim P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, 1990.

....interface construction tools TRIP [Kamada and Kawai, 1991] TRIP2 DeltaTrip (based on DeltaBlue) Takahashi et al. 1991] and TRIP3 [Miyashita et al. 1992] map abstract objects and relations onto sets of graphical items and geometric relations for visualization. The user interface editor Opus [Hudson and Mohamed, 1990] provides several display techniques for constraints that reduce the typical cluttering effect of display objects. The use of constraints with priorities for specifying inter and intra window relations in systems for window management and arrangement is illustrated in the non hierarchical window ....

S. E. Hudson and S. P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, 1990.

....bar should scroll the text in the text editor. However, Ibuild does not support the specification of the dynamic presentation of objects (e.g. an arrow should stay connected to a box) or the graphical creation of new behaviors. All behaviors must be pre defined by textually coding them. OPUS [10] is probably the application builder most closely related to Lapidary. OPUS allows toolkit elements and graphical components to be laid out by graphically attaching constraints to their position and size properties. OPUS and Lapidary both allow new behaviors to be defined via constraints. In ....

.... 44 Finally, it would be helpful to find a solution to the aggregate inferencing problem discussed in Section 9.5. A possible solution to this inferencing problem is to make Lapidary s guesses explicit by popping up some form of feedback, such as the springs and rigid wires used in Opus [10] and DialogEditor [3] However, in other parts of Lapidary, we have found that popping up obtrusive query boxes annoys users and interrupts their work flow. On the other hand, unobtrusive query or feedback boxes are too easily ignored. Another possible solution to this problem is suggested by ....

Scott E. Hudson and Shamim P. Mohamed. "Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays". ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8, 3 (July 1990), 269-288.

....or arbitrary constraints [Myers90b] cannot be used in Motif without writing a special manager widget. The GINA interface builder solves this problem by providing the ruler model that maps onto Motif s native facilities. A similar ruler model but with general constraints is described in [Hudson90b]. The GINA ruler model is more specialized because it only needs to include the functionality of the form widget. The idea of inferring layout parameters from an example is inspired by Peridot [Myers90a] The GINA interface builder applies this idea to the specific parameters of the Motif ....

Scott E. Hudson, Shamim P. Mohamed, Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8, 3 (July 1990), pp. 269-288

....Vector Graphics standard (Chapter 6) User interface widget toolkits are second only to drawing editors in their widespread use of constraints. Numerous widget toolkits, including Amulet [102, 110] its predecessor Garnet [108] and OPUS of the Penguims 2 user interface management system [81], all provide one way constraint solvers for relating the components in a widget hierarchy. Bramble [54] is the toolkit with which the Briar (see Section 2.3.1) drawing editor is implemented. Other constraint based interactive systems have been used for graphical search and replace [92, 93] ....

....yes yes yes no SkyBlue yes yes yes yes no DETAIL yes yes yes yes no Indigo yes yes no no yes a C.H. abbreviates Constraint Hierarchies . 20 One way local propagation constraint solvers The simplest local propagation solvers are embedded in widget layout kits such as ARTKit s Penguims [81], Amulet [110] and Garnet [108] These tools perform only one way solving a constraint such as x = y z 10 will be maintained only by setting x (the output variable) and never by setting y or z (the input variables) Although this example constraint is numeric, one of local propagation s ....

Scott E. Hudson and Shamim P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, July 1990.

....construction tools TRIP [ Kamada and Kawai, 1991 ] TRIP2 DeltaTrip (based on DeltaBlue) Takahashi et al. 1991 ] and TRIP3 [ Miyashita et al. 1992 ] map abstract objects and relations onto sets of graphical items and geometric relations for visualization. The user interface editor Opus [ Hudson and Mohamed, 1990 ] provides several display techniques for constraints that reduce the typical cluttering effect of display objects. The use of constraints with priorities for specifying inter and intra window relations in systems for window management and arrangement is illustrated in the non hierarchical ....

S. E. Hudson and S. P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, 1990.

....to provide a specification mechanism for coordination as well as visualization of coordinations in place. Possible approaches are textual spread sheet style or visual languages (in the spirit of [PCS95] for specifying multi window image browsers, Bor86] constraintbased simulation components, [HM90] user interface component layouts, ISB95] hypertext layouts) This gives users the flexibility to customize browsing environment to tasks. Capability to build up composite coordinations, by chaining many together, which can be saved or shared. CONCLUSION The benefits of multiple window ....

Hudson, S., Mohamed, S., "Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays", ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3), pp. 269-288, (July 1990).

....Peridot communicated constraints as English language fragments during confirmation, and Metamouse used buttons for confirming and prioritizing constraints. The OPUS interface editor represented constraints between interface components as arrows connecting hierarchical frames or drafting lines [Hudson90a] Our technique never requires that its users work with individual, low level constraints. In both the specification and debugging stages, they can think entirely in terms of acceptable configurations of the illustration. The inferred constraints can be tested by manipulating scene objects, and ....

Hudson, Scott E., and Mohamed, Shamim P. Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8, 3 (July 1990). 269-288.

....the desired constraints. User interface widget toolkits are second only to drawing editors in their aggressiveness using constraints. Numerous widget toolkits including Amulet [MM95, MMM 97] its predecessor Garnet [MGD 90a] and OPUS of the Penguims 5 user interface management system [HM90] all provide one way constraint solvers for relating the components in a widget hierarchy. Bramble [Gle93] is the toolkit with which the Briar (see Section 2.1) drawing editor is implemented. Other constraint based interactive systems have been used for graphical search and replace [KF92] curve ....

....multiple output; and equality (functional) relationships only vs. inequalities permitted. See Table 3 for an overview of the systems described in this section. 3.2. 1 One way LP constraint solvers The simplest local propagation solvers are embedded in widget layout kits such as ARTKit s Penguims [HM90] Amulet [MMM 97] and Garnet [MGD 90a] These perform only one way solving a constraint such as x = y z 10 will be maintained only by setting x (the output variable) and never by setting y or z (the input variables) Though this example constraint is numeric, one of local ....

Scott E. Hudson and Shamim P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, July 1990.

....although it does not preclude it. It is not hard to define adapter objects to add the level of indirection needed for generic mediators. 136 9.1.4 Constraint Programming Constraint programming systems are also based on a separate representation of relationships. Such systems include Penguims [Hudson and Mohamed 90] ThingLab II [Freeman Benson, Maloney, and Borning 90] Kaleidoscope [Freeman Benson 90, Lopez, Freeman Benson Borning 93] which extends the ThingLab II mechanisms by adding linguistic constructs for abstracting low level constraints into compound constraint objects) and CLP(R) Jaffar et ....

S.E. Hudson and S.P. Mohamed, "Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays," ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8,3, pp. 269-288, 1990.

....to pane contents (e.g. for menu panes) Thus, pane contents can have influences on the constraint solving processes. There are some proposals to define layout constraints between graphical objects presented inside a pane with direct manipulative demonstrational tools (e.g. Lapidary [7] OPUS [8] or the commercial ClassWorks from Harlequin) While box oriented layout descriptions for panes can be specified interactively, there are still problems in interactively specifying, for example, relative position constraints of graphical objects inside a pane (e.g. horizontal or vertical movement ....

Hudson, S.E., Mohamed, S.P., Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1990, pp. 269-288.

....Peridot communicated constraints as English language fragments during confirmation, and Metamouse used buttons for confirming and prioritizing constraints. The OPUS interface editor represented constraints between interface components as arrows connecting hierarchical frames or drafting lines [Hudson90a]. Our technique never requires that its users work with individual, low level constraints. In both the specification and debugging stages, they can think entirely in terms of acceptable configurations of the illustration. The inferred constraints can be tested by manipulating scene objects, and ....

Hudson, Scott E., and Mohamed, Shamim P. Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8, 3 (July 1990). 269-288.

....Goals for the interface are: Supported actions: create, edit, delete, save, and load coordinations. Support each of the coordination types, for each of the basic visual data types. Learnability: single uniform interface to coordination specification (step 4) Hudson and Mohamed [HM90] created a notation system for specifying constraints between GUI widgets for automatic layout control. An arrow from one object to another contains an equation that indicates the dynamic spacing between the displayed objects, and uses a Springs and Struts model for simple proportional layouts ....

Hudson, S., Mohamed, S., "Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays", ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3), pp. 269-288, (July 1990).

.... Many user interface management systems (UIMS) employ direct manipulation to let programmers Figure 22: Actual ConsCell Data Figure 23: Actual ConsCell Diagram manipulate the layout of widgets, their properties, reactions to the users when the programmers define new windows, and so forth[10, 11, 21, 22, 26]. Compared to these systems, TRIP3 has an innovative advantage: direct manipulation graphical editors integrated to applications are customized according to specific application data with extensive procedural programming. Instead, TRIP3 offers one generic direct manipulation graphical editor, and ....

....directly. The interactive graph layout system[9] employs hierarchical layout algorithms with constraints users can emphasize a certain part in a large graph by employing the most suitable layout algorithm for that part. Many UIMS s, including Peridot[19, 18] Garnet[21, 22] Penguims UIMS[10, 11], and Oak[26] employ constraints to represent widgets location, their behavior and handle propagation of values. 7 Conclusion and Future Work We have focused on the difficulty in creating GUI of high level application data. To solve the problem, we propose an automatic generation of declarative ....

Hudson, S. E. and Mohamed, S. P.: Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays, ACM Trans. Information Systems, 8 No. 3, pp. 269--288 (1990).

....used, for example, to save the results of an interactive design session for reuse or continued execution. In addition, Penguims textual input is generated by other related tools. For example, the OPUS system provides an alternate visual programming language for specifying graphical presentations [Huds90]. Application specific routines implemented in C or C can be linked with the system. These are accessed by means of a set of tables as described in Section 7. Once linked with the system, 5 ....

....copying of constraint equations into new contexts. In addition to these specific 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 ....

Hudson, S. E. and Mohamed, S. P., "Interactive Specification of Flexible User Interface Displays", ACM Transactions on Information Systems, v8, n3, pp. 269288, July 1990.

No context found.

S. E. Hudson and S. P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Trans. on Info. Sys., 8(3):269--288, July 1990.

No context found.

S. E. Hudson and S. P. Mohamed. Interactive specification of flexible user interface displays. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(3):269--288, 1990.

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