Making model based UI design practical u
Making Model-Based UI Design Practical:
Usable and Open Methods and Tools
Hallvard Trætteberg
Pedro J. Molina
Nuno J. Nunes
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology
Sem Sællandsv. 7
7491 Trondheim, Norway
+47 73593443
CARE Technologies S.A.
Pda. Madrigueres, 44.
03700 Denia, Spain
+34 966 435555
University of Madeira
Dep. Matemática e Engenharias
Campus da Penteada
9000-390 Funchal, Portugal
+351 291 705150
hal@idi.ntnu.no
pjmolina@care-t.com
njn@uma.pt
about the iMode tehcnology, where it is explained as follows
(quoting from the ACM article):
ABSTRACT
Model-based IU is an established discipline. However, it has not
been adopted in the software industry with the initial expected
success, and it has been kept in the meanwhile in the academia.
The main aim of this workshop is to analyze the current problems
with model-based UI design approaches and envision the main
characteristics and challenges to solve in the next generation of
model-based UI tools.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
D.2 [SOFTWARE ENGINEERING]: Design Tools and
Techniques – user interfaces, object-oriented design methods.
H.1 [MODELS AND PRINCIPLES]: User/Machine Systems.
General Terms
•
Relative advantage: the degree to which the innovation is
perceived as being better than the practice it supersedes;
•
Compatibility: the extent to which adopting the innovation is
compatible with what people do;
•
Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as relatively difficult to understand and use;
•
Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be
experimented with on a limited basis before making an
adoption (or rejecting) decision;
•
Observability: the degree to which the results of an
innovation are visible to others;
Based on these characteristics and the qualities of current
model-based UI design tools, we except that few will be adopted.
And this is indeed the result of a recent survey on the Past,
Present and Future of User Interface Tools, by Myers and
colleagues [2]. They identified some issues that are important for
evaluating which approaches were successful and which ones are
promising in the future:
Design, Experimentation, Standardization, Languages.
Keywords
Model-Based User Interface Design, Methods, Tool Support,
Industrial Adoption.
1. INTRODUCTION
Model-based UI design is an established field with a strong,
but unfortunately small community. Although the potential has
been shown through research prototypes and a few commercial
tools, there are still few practitioners of model-based UI design
methods.
The Analysis, Design and Modeling (AMD) tool market
recently saw a decline in revenues, contrary to the expectations of
the late 90s regarding the impact of the UML and other
technologies in spreading modeling tool usage. There are no
definite explanations to this unexpected decline, but there is
strong evidence that AMD tools require a transition to more
dynamic and developer-centered features that help address the
needs of rapidly changing business and technology requirements.
A general understanding of adoption of technology is
presented by [4]. His model is used by a recent ACM article [1]
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
IUI’04, Jan. 13–16, 2004, Madeira, Funchal, Portugal.
ACM 1-58113-815-6/04/0001.
376
•
The parts of the UI the tools address – the majority of
successful tools and technologies focus on a particular part of
the UI that is a significant problem, and which could be
addressed thoroughly and effectively. Examples of
approaches that failed to receive commercial success due to
issues involved with trying to address the whole problem
include UIMSs and Model-based and automatic generation
techniques;
•
Threshold and Ceiling – the difficulty of learning a new
system and how much can be done using the system.
Examples of unsuccessful approaches that suffered from the
high threshold problem include formal languages and
constraints;
•
Path of Least Resistance – the most successful tools are those
that lead to good UIs. Counter-examples include formal
languages, which promoted rigid sequences of actions that
are highly undesirable in modern non-modal Uis;
•
Predictability – developers typically resist tools that can
provide unpredictable results. The majority of tools
• standardization of UI models (UML lacks of UI
primitives)
employing automatic techniques (e.g. model-based systems)
made the link between the specification and the result
difficult to understand and control;
•
• round-trip problem (regeneration of UIs without loosing
manual changes)
Moving Targets – good tools become available when that
task is less important or even obsolete. Nearly all
unsuccessful approaches succumbed to the moving-target
problem. UIMSs, language-based approaches, constraints
and model-based systems were designed to support a flexible
variety of interaction styles and became less important with
standardization of the desktop UI.
4.
• Using UML for UI design
• Extending UML with UI-specific constructs
• User-centred design, prototyping and model-based
design
In the AMD industry there is a movement from Model
Driven to Model Execution approaches. Both use models as the
central artifacts of the development and maintenance process.
Model Execution approaches promises moderate to high threshold
but with the advantage of providing high ceiling. Well established
software domains can exploit these approaches to analyze, design
and generate the full applications with less resources and faster. It
is not clear however, whether the user interface design community
will endorse this approach. Next generation model-based tools
needs to be perceived as useful. As stated by the Novak's rule [3]:
"No body will create applications using specifications (models), if
they can do it faster directly coding." This implies: tools and
methods should be agile, useful, and easy to use.
• Usage-centred design, can it be merged with more
formal methods
• GUI-builders and model-based tools, possibility of
hybrid tools
5.
• How may we introduce model-based UID methods in
the curriculum?
6.
• Meta-modelling (possibly extending UML), MDAbased tool construction
• Open-sourcing and
ArgoUML/ARGOi)
tools
(ala
[1] Barnes, S. J., Huff, S. L. Rising Sun: iMode and the Wireless
Internet. Communications of the ACM, 46, 79-84, 2003.
Stories of success and failure
[2] Myers, B., Hudson, S. and Pausch, R., Past, Present, and
Future of User Interface Software Tools. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, 2000, 7, 3-28.
• What has been shown to work?
• Usage context (org/proj/participants) that is required for
successful use of model-based UI design methods
[3] Novak G.S. Novak’s rule:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/novak/index.html.
• When shouldn’t model-based methods be used?
What are the unsolved problems with UI tools?
on
3. REFERENCES
Suggested topics and open questions to discuss are as
follows:
3.
cooperating
A common vision of the current state and a set of
requirements for the next generation of model-based UI design
tools will be the basis for collaboration among participants in
joint research, development and publication.
The objectives include reviewing state of the art of MB-UID
tools, discussing some questions about user interface design
(UID) methods and tools, based on practical experiences.
What are the desired properties for UID tools?
Building open tools
• Sharing models and opening up existing tools
2. OBJECTIVES
2.
Educating industry (and students as potential practitioners)
• How do we present our methods to potential
practioners?
The workshop will focus on not just why, but also what can
be done to improve on the situation. Note however, that this
workshop’s focus is more on usability (in a broad sense) of
methods and tools than on theoretic problems. Therefore, personal
experiences and practice are just as important for identifying
problems. As a result of the workshop, a common vision of the
next generation UI methods and tools could be achieved.
Necessary steps to achieve the vision will also be discussed.
1.
Integration with existing methods and tools
[4] Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York,
1995.
• maintenance (respect to domain models, etc.),
377
Usable and Open Methods and Tools
Hallvard Trætteberg
Pedro J. Molina
Nuno J. Nunes
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology
Sem Sællandsv. 7
7491 Trondheim, Norway
+47 73593443
CARE Technologies S.A.
Pda. Madrigueres, 44.
03700 Denia, Spain
+34 966 435555
University of Madeira
Dep. Matemática e Engenharias
Campus da Penteada
9000-390 Funchal, Portugal
+351 291 705150
hal@idi.ntnu.no
pjmolina@care-t.com
njn@uma.pt
about the iMode tehcnology, where it is explained as follows
(quoting from the ACM article):
ABSTRACT
Model-based IU is an established discipline. However, it has not
been adopted in the software industry with the initial expected
success, and it has been kept in the meanwhile in the academia.
The main aim of this workshop is to analyze the current problems
with model-based UI design approaches and envision the main
characteristics and challenges to solve in the next generation of
model-based UI tools.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
D.2 [SOFTWARE ENGINEERING]: Design Tools and
Techniques – user interfaces, object-oriented design methods.
H.1 [MODELS AND PRINCIPLES]: User/Machine Systems.
General Terms
•
Relative advantage: the degree to which the innovation is
perceived as being better than the practice it supersedes;
•
Compatibility: the extent to which adopting the innovation is
compatible with what people do;
•
Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as relatively difficult to understand and use;
•
Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be
experimented with on a limited basis before making an
adoption (or rejecting) decision;
•
Observability: the degree to which the results of an
innovation are visible to others;
Based on these characteristics and the qualities of current
model-based UI design tools, we except that few will be adopted.
And this is indeed the result of a recent survey on the Past,
Present and Future of User Interface Tools, by Myers and
colleagues [2]. They identified some issues that are important for
evaluating which approaches were successful and which ones are
promising in the future:
Design, Experimentation, Standardization, Languages.
Keywords
Model-Based User Interface Design, Methods, Tool Support,
Industrial Adoption.
1. INTRODUCTION
Model-based UI design is an established field with a strong,
but unfortunately small community. Although the potential has
been shown through research prototypes and a few commercial
tools, there are still few practitioners of model-based UI design
methods.
The Analysis, Design and Modeling (AMD) tool market
recently saw a decline in revenues, contrary to the expectations of
the late 90s regarding the impact of the UML and other
technologies in spreading modeling tool usage. There are no
definite explanations to this unexpected decline, but there is
strong evidence that AMD tools require a transition to more
dynamic and developer-centered features that help address the
needs of rapidly changing business and technology requirements.
A general understanding of adoption of technology is
presented by [4]. His model is used by a recent ACM article [1]
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
IUI’04, Jan. 13–16, 2004, Madeira, Funchal, Portugal.
ACM 1-58113-815-6/04/0001.
376
•
The parts of the UI the tools address – the majority of
successful tools and technologies focus on a particular part of
the UI that is a significant problem, and which could be
addressed thoroughly and effectively. Examples of
approaches that failed to receive commercial success due to
issues involved with trying to address the whole problem
include UIMSs and Model-based and automatic generation
techniques;
•
Threshold and Ceiling – the difficulty of learning a new
system and how much can be done using the system.
Examples of unsuccessful approaches that suffered from the
high threshold problem include formal languages and
constraints;
•
Path of Least Resistance – the most successful tools are those
that lead to good UIs. Counter-examples include formal
languages, which promoted rigid sequences of actions that
are highly undesirable in modern non-modal Uis;
•
Predictability – developers typically resist tools that can
provide unpredictable results. The majority of tools
• standardization of UI models (UML lacks of UI
primitives)
employing automatic techniques (e.g. model-based systems)
made the link between the specification and the result
difficult to understand and control;
•
• round-trip problem (regeneration of UIs without loosing
manual changes)
Moving Targets – good tools become available when that
task is less important or even obsolete. Nearly all
unsuccessful approaches succumbed to the moving-target
problem. UIMSs, language-based approaches, constraints
and model-based systems were designed to support a flexible
variety of interaction styles and became less important with
standardization of the desktop UI.
4.
• Using UML for UI design
• Extending UML with UI-specific constructs
• User-centred design, prototyping and model-based
design
In the AMD industry there is a movement from Model
Driven to Model Execution approaches. Both use models as the
central artifacts of the development and maintenance process.
Model Execution approaches promises moderate to high threshold
but with the advantage of providing high ceiling. Well established
software domains can exploit these approaches to analyze, design
and generate the full applications with less resources and faster. It
is not clear however, whether the user interface design community
will endorse this approach. Next generation model-based tools
needs to be perceived as useful. As stated by the Novak's rule [3]:
"No body will create applications using specifications (models), if
they can do it faster directly coding." This implies: tools and
methods should be agile, useful, and easy to use.
• Usage-centred design, can it be merged with more
formal methods
• GUI-builders and model-based tools, possibility of
hybrid tools
5.
• How may we introduce model-based UID methods in
the curriculum?
6.
• Meta-modelling (possibly extending UML), MDAbased tool construction
• Open-sourcing and
ArgoUML/ARGOi)
tools
(ala
[1] Barnes, S. J., Huff, S. L. Rising Sun: iMode and the Wireless
Internet. Communications of the ACM, 46, 79-84, 2003.
Stories of success and failure
[2] Myers, B., Hudson, S. and Pausch, R., Past, Present, and
Future of User Interface Software Tools. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, 2000, 7, 3-28.
• What has been shown to work?
• Usage context (org/proj/participants) that is required for
successful use of model-based UI design methods
[3] Novak G.S. Novak’s rule:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/novak/index.html.
• When shouldn’t model-based methods be used?
What are the unsolved problems with UI tools?
on
3. REFERENCES
Suggested topics and open questions to discuss are as
follows:
3.
cooperating
A common vision of the current state and a set of
requirements for the next generation of model-based UI design
tools will be the basis for collaboration among participants in
joint research, development and publication.
The objectives include reviewing state of the art of MB-UID
tools, discussing some questions about user interface design
(UID) methods and tools, based on practical experiences.
What are the desired properties for UID tools?
Building open tools
• Sharing models and opening up existing tools
2. OBJECTIVES
2.
Educating industry (and students as potential practitioners)
• How do we present our methods to potential
practioners?
The workshop will focus on not just why, but also what can
be done to improve on the situation. Note however, that this
workshop’s focus is more on usability (in a broad sense) of
methods and tools than on theoretic problems. Therefore, personal
experiences and practice are just as important for identifying
problems. As a result of the workshop, a common vision of the
next generation UI methods and tools could be achieved.
Necessary steps to achieve the vision will also be discussed.
1.
Integration with existing methods and tools
[4] Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York,
1995.
• maintenance (respect to domain models, etc.),
377