Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'89, Williamsburg, VA, Nov., 1989, pp. 95-104.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....devices, and user preferences. Here the placing of so called interaction techniques is based on constraints which are associated with a measure of specificity. Further user interfaces and interface design systems that use constraints include GROW [Barth, 1986] Peridot [Myers, 1988] Lapidary [Myers et al. 1989], MEL [Hill, 1991] GITS, Animus [Duisberg, 1987] and the FilterBrowser user interface construction tool [Ege et al. 1987] The references [Borning et al. 1992, Sannella, 1994, Fron, 1994] contain additional pointers to constraint based user interfaces. 3.5 Programming by Example and ....

B. A. Myers, B. T. Vander Zanden, and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating graphical interactive application objects by demonstration. In Proceedings of the UIST'89 (ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology), pages 95--104, Williamsburg, VA, November 1989.

....to construct 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 ....

B. Myers, B. Vander Zanden and R. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 95-104, November 1989.

....interfaces the interface entities are themselves distributed too. The user interface design process uses concepts such as dialogue independence, structural modelling, representation techniques, interaction techniques, rapid prototyping, methodology, and control structures, see e.g. 7] and [8]. According to these concepts the AOM model proposes an active object based modelling approach. The interface entities are active objects. Their behaviour throughout virtual space models the entity s functionality. 4 ACTIVE OBJECTS MODEL The AOM model (see e.g. 5] and [6] has been developed ....

....AND PROGRAMMING The notions of visual and visualization are used in different contexts both in commercial and experimental software products. The program visualization is often used in conjunction with the visualization of code, data, and algorithm in a static or dynamic manner, see e.g. [8]. In graphical user interfaces the visual interaction techniques are frequently used. The visual interaction techniques imply interactivity through direct manipulation on entities that have a graphical presentation within the user interface. Visual language unlike textual language allows the user ....

Myers, B.A., Zanden, B.V., Dannenberg, R.B. (1990) Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. The Garnet Compendium: Collected Papers, 1989-1990. CarnegieMellon Univ., Aug. 1990. 95-114.

....and user preferences. Here the placing of so called interaction techniques is based on constraints which are associated with a measure of specificity. Further user interfaces and interface design systems that use constraints include GROW [ Barth, 1986 ] Peridot [ Myers, 1988 ] Lapidary [ Myers et al. 1989 ] MEL [ Hill, 1991 ] GITS, Animus [ Duisberg, 1987 ] and the FilterBrowser user interface construction tool [ Ege et al. 1987 ] The references [ Borning et al. 1992, Sannella, 1994, Fron, 1994 ] contain additional pointers to constraint based user interfaces. 3.5 ....

B. A. Myers, B. T. Vander Zanden, and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating graphical interactive application objects by demonstration. In Proceedings of the UIST'89 (ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology), pages 95--104, Williamsburg, VA, November 1989.

....extent, in some of the user interface management systems [28] and in the programming languages [29] as a hot topic of research in AI in the late 70s. The feasibility of using demonstration has also been studied in certain classes of applications like text editors [30, 31] drawing packages [32], and spreadsheet programs [33] A simple example of the use of demonstration in interface is the use of macros in Emacs. A macro in Emacs is created when the user selects the define keyboard macro command and then executes a series of editing actions (as an example) After that, the user can ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannerberg, "Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration," Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, 1989, pp.95-104.

....interface builder [6] Consequently, Inference Bear only adds 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. ....

.... Object Creation Deletion Capabilities (Subjective) Strength in 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 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Myers, B., B. Vander Zanden and R. Dannenberg, Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects By Demonstration, Proceedings of UIST'89, Williamsburg, Virginia, Nov. 1989, pp. 95-104.

....uses a simple 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 ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden and Roger B. Dannenberg. "Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration". Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST '89, Williamsburgh, VA, November, 1989. pp. 95-104. . 237

....with respect 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 ....

....specifying menus and submenus) An interface builder for CLIM has been developed by Cramer. It is called Mirage. Since many applications deal with (dynamic) geometric objects, facilities offered by interface builders for drawing graphical objects (like those provided by ClassWorks or Lapidary [7]) are not required or not directly applicable. The unified command abstraction is unique to CLIM (and its predecessor Dynamic Windows, see below) In order to parse commands and to accept only valid arguments, CLIM needs several declarations. A command is specified by declaring argument types for ....

Myers, B.A., Vander Zanden, B., Dannenberg, R.B., Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration, in: Proceedings UISTš89, Nov. 1989, pp. 95-104.

....integration of a concurrency abstraction into a functional language. In contrast to the other approaches (including ours) discussed up to now, only so called deterministic concurrency is considered, which rules out any non 1 These gadgets are not to be confused with the gadgets described in [MZD89] the latter presents one of the first systems supporting the graphical specification of graphical user interfaces. CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RELATED WORK 30 determinism. The resulting language, therefore, is much less expressive than the languages considered above. Moreover, it is restricted ....

B. A. Myers, B. Vander Zanden, and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating graphical interactive application objects by demonstration. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Graphical Techniques and Constraints, pages 95--104, 1989.

....The usability 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 ....

B. A. Myers, B. Vander Zanden and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. In Proceedings UIST'89. November 1989, pp.95-104.

.... 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 ....

....manipulate graphical objects 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 ....

Myers, B. A., Zanden, B. V., and Dannenberg, R. B.: Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration, in Proc. of ACM User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), pp. 95--104 (1989).

No context found.

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'89, Williamsburg, VA, Nov., 1989, pp. 95-104.

....graphical, direct manipulation user interfaces. These systems also use constraints, which are relationships that are declared once and maintained by the system, to tie objects values together. Amulet and Garnet al..so include many other innovations, which are described in various papers [Myers 1989][Myers 1990a] Vander Zanden 1990] Myers 1991b] Myers 1991a] Hashimoto 1992] Myers 1994] Vander Zanden 1994] Vander Zanden 1995b] Myers 1996a] Myers 1996b] Myers 1998] This chapter concentrates on the prototype instance object systems in Garnet and Amulet. In Garnet s and Amulet s ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden and Roger B. Dannenberg. "Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration," ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'89. Williamsburg, VA, Nov, 1989. pp. 95-104.

....fair, many of these projects used early versions of the tools, and one might expect that some of the problems have been fixed in more recent versions. Some users called for extended capabilities such as the ability to draw the dynamic parts of windows. Since a few research tools, such as Lapidary [8] and DEMO [15] now support this, we can hope that commercial products will provide this capability in the near future. Most difficult aspects of the development of the UI There were many interesting responses to the question about the most difficult aspects of the development of the user ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'89, Williamsburg, VA, Nov., 1989, pp. 95-104.

....user is then always left to wonder if the system could make the right guess when supplied with a slightly different demonstration, or if it just cannot draw the desired inference at all. We encountered the same limitations with our rule based tool, the interview component (Chapter V) Lapidary [Myer89] focused on creating application specific objects. It also used constraints but replaced Peridot s active values with interactors [Myer90a] as its way of handling user input. To specify a constraint by demonstration, the user first selects the user interface event which triggers the constraint, ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating graphical interactive application objects by demonstration. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 95--104, (Williamsburg, Virginia, November 13-15) 1989.

....to activate the appropriate constraints based on the state of the interface. Lapidary is part of the Garnet user interface development environment [26] and is one of the interactive tools that provide a visual programming environment for Garnet. A preliminary version of Lapidary was presented in [23]. This paper describes the completed version of the system which makes a number of major additional contributions. First, the current version of Lapidary significantly expands the use of constraints as a technique for supporting inferencing and the generalization of example objects. In addition to ....

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Proceedings UIST'89, Williamsburg, VA, Nov., 1989, pp. 95-104.

No context found.

Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating graphical interactive application objects by demonstration. In UIST89, pages 95--104, November 1989.

No context found.

Myers, Brad A., Vander Zanden, Brad, and Dannenberg, Roger B. "Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration", Proceedings ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on user Interface Software and Technology, ACM, 1989, pp. 95-104. REFERENCES 20

No context found.

Myers 89 B. A. Myers, B. Vander Zanden and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1989 Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '89), 1989, pp.95-104.

No context found.

Myers89 B. A. Myers, B. Vander Zanden and R. B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1989 Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '89), 1989, pp.95-104.

No context found.

Myers, Brad A., Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Interactive Application Objects by Demonstration. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Williamsburg, VA, November 1989, pages 95-104.

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