D. Olsen, Jr., `Mike: the menu interaction kontrol environment', ACM Trans. Graphics, 5, (4), 318--344 (1986).  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the user interface by context sensitive hypertext help pages. These provide information about the current state of the user interface. Moreover, the generated user guidance component uses animation sequences to demonstrate how complex tasks can be accomplished by the user. 3 Related Work MIKE [18] (Menu Interaction Kontroll Environment) und MIKEY [19] generate user interfaces with menus and dialog boxes based on a description of the functions (argument and result parameters) and the data structures in the application interface. In HIGGENS [10] a semantic data model of the application ....

D. R. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(4):318 -- 344, 1986.

....because the side effects depend on the effects of the action of a behavior rather than on the behavior itself. RELATED WORK The most sophisticated of the UIMSs centered around the notion of deriving the user interface from a high level specification of the semantics of a program are MIKE [14], UofA [18] and UIDE [3] MIKE and UofA are able to generate a default interface from a minimal application description, and provide a few parameters that a designer can set to control the resulting interface. MIKE allows designers to define the interaction techniques for prompting for inputs, ....

D. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

....routines, in a way that is similar to toolkits. 16] The primary advantage of this approach is that the application code remains independent of the user interface, and many interfaces 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] ....

D. Olsen. Mike: The menu interaction kontrol environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1986.

....default behavior that fills in for deferred design commitments, thereby making even incomplete specifications executable and testable. RELATED WORK Other user interface management systems which derive the user interface from a high level specification of the semantics of a program are MIKE [15], and UofA [17] which are able to generate a default interface from a minimal application description, and provide a few parameters that a designer can set to control the resulting interface. Our model of commands allows designers to exert much finer control over dialogue sequencing. In ....

D. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

....support paradigms of intertwined design and implementation [6, 33] do not provide an adequate balance between providing high level design automation and giving designers extensive control over interface design. Interface builders (e.g. 24, 25] and automatic interface generation systems (e.g. [2, 10, 13, 26, 30]) represent tools of this kind. Interface builders offer designers extensive control over certain tasks (such as defining the properties of a push button: shading, color, label, font, size, and so on) with an iterative development paradigm. However, they require designers to handle too many ....

....design activities; by offering designers different means to realize a design; and by preparing tools for interface implementation. With these features, opportunistic design becomes easier to manage. 132 Ping Luo 9.2. 2 Model based Approach Model driven approaches (e.g. UIDE [10] APT [18] Mike [26], SAGE [29] UofA [30] and HUMANOID [35, 36] use declarative interface models to facilitate interface design with sophisticated services throughout the interface development lifecycle. These models explicitly describe characteristics of interfaces; therefore, by analyzing and annotating the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. Olsen. MIKE: The menu interaction kontrol environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

....guidelines collected from the literature in the domain of experimental research. Although this tool can identify relevant guidelines for each linguistic level (e.g. semantic, syntactic, lexical, physical) it does not produce any menu nor does it specify how these guidelines should be used. MIKE [7] is probably the first research that followed a model based approach. This software tool automatically generates a Unix graphical UI by exploiting the declarations of procedure signatures. These declarations, contained in the foreword of a Pascal unit, are exploited to automatically generate items ....

D.R. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics. Vol. 5. No. 4. Octobre 1986, pp. 318-344.

....include Cousin [14] and HP Apollo s Open Dialogue [55] which provided a declarative language in which the designer listed the input and output needs of the user interface. The system then generated the dialogs to display and request the data. These evolved into model based systems, such as Mike [43], Jade [67] UIDE [60] ITS [74] and Humanoid [62] These systems used techniques such as heuristic rules to automatically select interactive components, layouts, and other details of the interface. Automatic and model based techniques have suffered from the problems of unpredictability. In fact, ....

Olsen Jr., D.R., "Mike: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment." ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1986. 5(4) pp. 318-344.

....that is consistent with the interface standards. It uses a knowledge base of several rules which describe the properties of a consistent interface. TRIDENT [77] is another example of a rule based intelligent tool that intelligently selects objects for automatically generating an interface. MIKE [78] generates menus in an intelligent fashion based on the example strings provided by the user. Automatic generation of interfaces comes at the expense of flexibility and range of designs that can be produced by these tools. ITS [72] and DON [80] focus on the creation of dialogue boxes for GUIs, but ....

D.Olsen, "MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment," ACM Trans. Graphics, Vol.17, No.3, 1986, pp.43-50.

....very primitive. MASTERMIND s dialogue specification is more comprehensive. It captures not only the high level user tasks that end users are expected to perform with the system, but also their decomposition into low level tasks that correspond to dialogue specifications used in UIMSs. Some UIMSs [1, 27] automatically generate interfaces from specifications that are similar to the MASTERMIND application model. MASTERMIND improves on these systems by providing much more comprehensive models of tasks and presentations, allowing designers much better control over the interfaces generated. 7.3 ....

D. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

....the appearance of the interface to change focus, they do not provide general tools for interacting with the structure of the interface. Most interface building toolkits provide the interface designer with a collection of tools for positioning a given static set of interaction objects on the screen [5, 10, 11, 13, 16]. These systems provide support for creating interfaces with fixed structures but they cannot create interfaces the end user can restructure at runtime. They also cannot produce interfaces for dynamic data sets. The Humanoid system [18] creates interfaces for dynamic data sets by using templates ....

Olsen, D. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 43-50, (1986).

....recent papers, Olsen, Hudson, and Hill have strongly criticised the syntactic approach to input. Olsen [94] thinks that ease of use is often more critical to the success of a UIMS than syntactic capability. Having used syntactic input parsing in the SYNGRAPH and GRINS, Olsen s latest system, MIKE [92], abandons the syntactic component. Coutaz similarly abandons the single dialogue component in her PAC model [19] Hudson [58] views syntactic input as reducing engagement in a direct manipulation system, since the user is communicating with the system rather than with the objects of interest, ....

D.R. Olsen. Mike: the Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Trans. Graphics, 5(4):318--344, October 1986.

....interface (e.g. for a different class of users) is often as time consuming as the original design, because a lot of layout details have to be reconsidered. The second category of user interface tools tries to overcome these drawbacks. Model based user interface tools or user interface generators [19, 27, 8, 30, 12, 28, 5, 2] follow the notion of generating automatically an executable user interface out of a declarative description (model) of the properties of an interactive application (application interface, user interaction task space, presentation design rules) Model based tools claim the following benefits: ffl ....

....users terminate a task. After the users pushes Cancel Task the OMS is in its beginning state (users can select again the task they want to accomplish) 11.5 Related Work In HIGGENS [11] the semantic data model is used to derive views as abstract representations of user interface displays. MIKE [19], Mickey [20] and UofA [27] generate user interfaces out of a description of application actions and parameters. Compared to these systems, which had much influence on the development of BOSS, BOSS allows to exert more control over the different aspects of an interactive application s model, ....

D. R. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(4):318 -- 344, 1986.

....high level specification language. This specification would be automatically translated into an executable program, or interpreted at run time to generate the appropriate interface. Many early UIMSs focused on dialogue specification [15] They used state transition diagrams [18] grammars [30, 31] or event based representations [41] to specify the interface responses to events coming from the input devices. The display aspects of the interface were typically specified outside the specification language, in call back procedures that painted the screen as appropriate. Some UIMSs used as ....

Olsen, D.R.: MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 4, 318-344 (1986).

....design, and providing a high level of design automation. Tools that give designers extensive control over details of a design, like interface builders [14] typically force designers to control all details of the design. Tools that automate significant portions of interface design, like MIKE [15] and UofA [16] typically let designers control few of the details. This paper describes our efforts to combine the benefits of these two classes of tools to provide extensive human control without drowning designers in details. Our thesis is that model driven programming plus decomposition of ....

....how they will be presented) Furthermore, the number of steps entailed to change a high level commitment discourages exploring many alternatives. Missing from interface builders are support for design abstraction and the ability to defer design commitments. Automatic interface generation systems [2, 5, 7, 15, 16] generate user interfaces based on a description of application functionality. The main purpose of these systems is to hide interface design complexity by automating all design decisions made by human designers. Because of this, they provide human designers with very little control over those ....

D. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

....effort, since nothing in the presentation designer or media or information agents need be altered; all that must be updated resides in declarative models. With regard to user interface management systems such as UIDE [Foley et al. 91] HUMANOID [Luo et al. 93, Szekely et al. 93] and MIKE [Olsen 86] Cicero complements them. These types of systems focus on assisting the system designer to construct an appropriate interface at design time (addressing such tasks as manually selecting and specifying which media to use for what information, how to lay out the screen, how to Cicero : A ....

D. Olsen. 1986. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics. 17(3) (43--50).

No context found.

D. Olsen, Jr., `Mike: the menu interaction kontrol environment', ACM Trans. Graphics, 5, (4), 318--344 (1986).

No context found.

Olsen, Jr., D. (1986). MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 4, 318-344.

No context found.

Olsen, D. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM TOG 5(4), Oct. 1986, pp.318-344.

No context found.

Olsen86 D. Olsen. MIKE: The Menu Interaction Kontrol Environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol 17, no 3, pp. 43-50, 1986.

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