Advertisement

Automated Software Engineering

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 203–217 | Cite as

User interface design assistance for large-scale software development

  • Gregory Alan Bolcer
Article

Abstract

The User Interface Design Assistant (UIDA) addresses the specific design problems of style and integration consistency throughout the user interface development process and aids in the automated feedback and evaluation of a system's graphical user interface according to knowledge-based rules and project-specific design examples. The UIDA system is able to quickly identify inconsistent style guide interpretations and UI design decisions resulting from distributed development of multiple UI sub-systems. This case arises when each sub-system conforms to the general style guide rules, but when integrated together, may appear inconsistent.

Keywords

user interface design assistance style guidelines project integration style inconsistency large-scale software distributed development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OSF/Motif Style Guide. Cambridge, MA, 1.1 edition, 1988. Open Software Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OPEN LOOK Graphical User Interface Application Style Guidelines. Sun Microsystems, Inc.; Addison-Wesley, 1990 edition, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Defense information systems agency human computer interface style guide. Style guide, Center for Information Management, Feb. 1992. Version 1.0, 200 pages.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Boehm. Notes on a knowledge based software architecture assistant. Notes, U.S.C. Center for Software Engineering, Jan. 1992. 18 pages.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Brownstone and et al.Programming Expert Systems in OPS5, volume 1 ofArtificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Jan. 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Fischer, A. C. Lernke, and T. Mastaglio. Using critics to empower users. InProceedings of CHI '90, pages 337–347. Seattle, Washington, Apr. 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. C. Kim and J. D. Foley. Providing high-level control and expert assistance in the user interface presentation design. InProceedings of INTERCHI '93, pages 430–437, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Apr. 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Liao and J. Hsieh. Knowledge-based review assistant. Project, U.S.C. Center for Software Engineering, 1993. 15 pages.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Lowgren and T. Nordqvist. Knowledge-based evaluation as design support for graphical user interfaces. InProceedings of CHI '92, pages 181–188, Monterey, California, May 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Luo, P. Szekely, and R. Neches. Management of interface design in humanoid. InProceedings of INTERCHI '93, pages 107–114, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Apr. 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. A. Myers.Creating User Interfaces By Demonstration, volume 22. Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. A. Myers. Encapsulating interactive behaviors. InProceedings of CHI'89, pages 319–324, Austin, Texas, May 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Nielsen. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. InProceedings of CHI '92, pages 373–380, Monterey, California, May 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Richardson and et al. Developing and integrating prodag in the arcadia environment. InACM SIGSOFT, pages 109–119, Tyson's Corner, Virginia, USA, Dec. 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. N. Sukaviriya, J. D. Foley, and T. Griffith. A second generation user interface design environment: The model and the runtime architecture. InProceedings of INTERCHI '93, pages 375–382, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Apr. 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. N. Taylor and G. F. Johnson. Separations of concerns in the chiron-1 user interface development and management system. InProceedings of INTERCHI '93, pages 367–374, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Apr. 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Tetzlaff and D. R. Schwartz. The use of guidelines in interface design. InProceedings of CHI '91, pages 329–333, New Orleans, Louisiana, Apr. 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Thovtrup and J. Nielsen. Assessing the usability of a user interface standard. InProceedings of CHI '91, pages 335–341, New Orleans, Louisiana, Apr. 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. S. Young and R. N. Taylor. Human-executed operations in the teamwaree process programming system. InProceedings of the Ninth International Software Process Workshop, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. V. Zanden and B. A. Myers. Automatic, look-and-feel independent dialog creation for graphical user interfaces. InProceedings of CHI '90, pages 27–34, Seattle, Washington, Apr. 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory Alan Bolcer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaIrvine

Personalised recommendations