Abstract not found

Almost as long as there have been user interfaces, there have been special software systems and tools to help design and implement the user interface software. Many of these tools have demonstrated significant productivity gains for programmers, and have become important commercial products. Others have proven less successful at supporting the kinds of user interfaces people want to build. This article discusses the different kinds of user interface software tools, and investigates why some approaches have worked and others have not. Many examples of commercial and research systems are included. Finally, current research directions and open issues in the field are discussed.

Interface builders only support the construction of the menus and dialogue boxes of an application. They do not support the construction of interfaces of many application classes (visualization, simulation, command and control, domain-specific editors) because of the dynamic and complex information that these applications process. HUMANOID is a model-based interface design and construction tool where interfaces are specified by building a declarative description (model) of their presentation and behavior. HUMANOID' s modeling language provides simple abstraction, iteration and conditional constructs to model the interface features of these application classes. HUMANOID provides an easy-touse designer's interface that lets designers build complex interfaces without programming.

Research on model-based user interface development tools is about 10 years old. Many approaches and prototype systems have been investigated in universities and research laboratories around the world. This paper proposes a generic architecture for these tools, reviews the different approaches in light of this architecture, and discusses their progress towards the goals of increasing the quality and reducing the cost of developing interfaces. The paper closes with a discussion of challenges for future model-based development tools. Keywords Model-based interface development, automatic user interface generation, user interface design.

In order to give people ubiquitous access to software applications, device controllers, and Internet services, it will be necessary to automatically adapt user interfaces to the computational devices at hand (e.g., cell phones, PDAs, touch panels, etc.). While previous researchers have proposed solutions to this problem, each has limitations. This paper proposes a novel solution based on treating interface adaptation as an optimization problem. When asked to render an interface on a specific device, our Supple system searches for the rendition that meets the device’s constraints and minimizes the estimated effort for the user’s expected interface actions. We make several contributions: 1) precisely defining the interface rendition problem, 2) demonstrating how user traces can be used to customize interface rendering to particular user’s usage pattern, 3) presenting an efficient interface rendering algorithm, 4) performing experiments that demonstrate the utility of our approach.

The personal universal controller (PUC) is an approach for improving the interfaces to complex appliances by introducing an intermediary graphical or speech interface. A PUC engages in two-way communication with everyday appliances, first downloading a specification of the appliance's functions, and then automatically creating an interface for controlling that appliance. The specification of each appliance includes a high-level description of every function, a hierarchical grouping of those functions, and dependency information, which relates the availability of each function to the appliance's state. Dependency information makes it easier for designers to create specifications and helps the automatic interface generators produce a higher quality result. We describe the architecture that supports the PUC, and the interface generators that use our specification language to build high-quality graphical and speech interfaces.

This paper describes an approach to the automatic presentation of multimedia documents based on parsing and syntax-directed translation using Relational Grammars. This translation is followed by a constraint solving mechanism to create the final layout. Grammatical rules provide the mechanism for mapping from a representation of the content of a presentation to forms that specify the media objects to be realized. These realization forms include sets of spatial and temporal constraints between elements of the presentation. Individual grammars encapsulate the "look and feel" of a presentation and can be used as generators of that style. By making the grammars sensitive to the requirements of the output medium, parsing can introduce flexibility into the information realization process. Keywords: Automatic design, grammar-directed design, visual languages, relational grammars, parsing, constraints 2: Introduction A fully functioning multimedia system requires a wide range of stages to achi...

Currently, building a user interface involves creating a large procedural program. Modelbased programming provides an alternative new paradigm. In the model-based paradigm, developers create a declarative model that describes the tasks that users are expected to accomplish with a system, the functional capabilities of a system, the style and requirements of the interface, the characteristics and preferences of the users, and the I/O techniques supported by the delivery platform. Based on the model, a much smaller procedural program then determines the behavior of the system. There are several advantages to this approach. The declarative model is a common representation that tools can reason about, enabling the construction of tools that automate various aspects of interface design, that assist system builders in the creation of the model, that automatically provide context sensitive help and other run-time assistance to users. The common model also allows the tools that operate on it t...

Model-based interface development works on the following central premise: given a declarative interface model that defines all the relevant characteristics of a user interface, then comprehensive, automated, user-interface development environments can be built around such model. Yet, the high potential of this technology has not been realised because all interface models built so far are partial representations of interfaces, cannot be readily modified by developers, are implicitly tied to their associated development environment, or, importantly, are not publicly available to the HCI community. The MECANO Project is a research effort that aims to overcome such limitations. It encompasses two phases: (1) The development of a comprehensive interface model available as a resource to the HCI community, and (2) the implementation of a open model-based development environment based on such an interface model. In this paper, we report on the first phase of the project. We present the MECANO Interface Model (MIM), and its associated interface modelling language (MIMIC). We describe a metalevel paradigm for interface modelling that overcomes problems of flexibility and completeness. The paradigm is also unique in that it not only models the user interface but also models explicitly the design process of the interface. This allows the construction of software tools that operate on the design process as well as on the interface elements. MIM has been validated via a variety of paper-based interfaces.

A user interface software tool helps developers design and implement the user interface. Research on past tools has had enormous impact on today's developers---virtually all applications today were built using some form of user interface tool. In this paper, we consider cases of both success and failure in past user interface tools. From these cases we extract a set of themes which can serve as lessons for future work. Using these themes, past tools can be characterized by what aspects of the user interface they addressed, their threshold and ceiling, what path of least resistance they offer, how predictable they are to use, and whether they addressed a target that became irrelevant. We believe the lessons of these past themes are particularly important now, because increasingly rapid technological changes are likely to significantly change user interfaces. We are at the dawn of an era where user interfaces are about to break out of the "desktop" box where they have been stuck for the ...