Advertisement

Analysis of notations for modeling user interaction scenarios in ubiquitous collaborative systems

  • Maximiliano CanchéEmail author
  • Sergio F. Ochoa
  • Daniel Perovich
  • Francisco J. Gutierrez
Original Research
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Ubiquitous collaborative systems are difficult to design; particularly those where the participants are human beings and there is not a pre-established workflow to coordinate the activities conducted by them. A key challenge for designers of these systems is to envision and represent scenarios where the interaction among users can take place, and thus provide appropriate services to the supporting application. A few modeling languages and notations have been proposed for specifying interaction scenarios among users, but none of them has been broadly adopted by systems’ designers, probably because there is not clear evidence that helps engineers decide what notation to use. This paper reviews the three main visual notations proposed to model computer-mediated interaction scenarios and presents an experimental study that analyses not only the usability and usefulness of these notations, but also the tensions among these aspects. The study results help designers identify suitable user interaction representations to support the requirement elicitation and analysis during the development of ubiquitous collaborative systems. The results can also be used to improve the usability and usefulness of other visual notations, and the relationship between these two aspects. In this sense, designers of modeling languages can take advantage of the study findings to generate new proposals or improve the existing ones.

Keywords

User interaction modeling notation Analysis of visual notation Ubiquitous collaborative systems People-driven processes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research work of Maximiliano Canche has been funded in part by the PRODEP Mexican Program, grant number PROMEP/103.5/16/6096 and CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2019-21191825. The research work conducted by Sergio F. Ochoa and Francisco J. Gutierrez has been partially supported by Fondecyt Project (Chile), Grant: 1191516.

References

  1. Aldunate R, Ochoa SF, Peña-Mora F, Nussbaum M (2006) Robust mobile ad hoc space for collaboration to support disaster relief efforts involving critical physical infrastructure. J Comput Civ Eng 20(1):13–27.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2006)20:1(13) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annett J (2003) Hierarchical task analysis. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antunes P, Simíes D, Carriço L, Pino JA (2013) An end-user approach to business process modeling. J Netw Comput Appl 36(6):1466–1479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2013.03.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker MJ (2015) Collaboration in Collaborative Learning. Interact Stud Soc Behav Commun Biol Artif Syst 16(3):451–473Google Scholar
  5. Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (1994) The goal question metric approach. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/handouts/gqm.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2019
  6. Beck K, Beedle M, Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M, Grenning J, Highsmith J, Hunt A, Jeffries R, Kern J, Marick B, Martin R, Mellor S, Schwaber K, Sutherland J, Thomas D (2001) Manifesto for agile software development. http://www.agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed 25 Sep 2019
  7. Buchanan S, Salako A (2009) Evaluating the usability and usefulness of a digital library. Libr Rev 58(9):638–651.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910997928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bukhsh Z, van Sinderen M, Sikkel K, Quartel D (2019) How to Manage and Model Unstructured Business Processes: A Proposed List of Representational Requirements. In: Obaidat M, Cabello E (eds) E-business and telecommunications. ICETE 2017. Communications in computer and information science, vol 990. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  9. Canche M, Ochoa SF (2018) Modeling computer-mediated user interactions in ubiquitous collaborative systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (UCAmI 2018) 2(19): 1250.  https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2191250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardoso E, Labunets K, Dalpiaz F, Mylopoulos J, Giorgini P (2016) Modeling structured and unstructured processes: an empirical evaluation. In: Comyn-Wattiau I, Tanaka K, Song IY, Yamamoto S, Saeki M (eds) Conceptual modeling. ER 2016. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9974. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  11. Collazos CA, Guerrero LA, Pino JA, Ochoa SF (2002) Evaluating Collaborative Learning Processes. In: Haake JM, Pino JA (eds) Groupware: design, implementation, and use. CRIWG 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2440. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Collazos CA, Guerrero LA, Pino JA, Ochoa SF, Stahl G (2007) Designing collaborative learning environments using digital games. J UCS 13(7):1022–1032Google Scholar
  13. Delgado VA, Collazos CA, Fardoun HM, Safa N (2017) Collaboration increase through monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the collaborative learning process. In: Meiselwitz G (ed) Social Computing and social media. Applications and analytics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Ciccio C, Marrella A, Russo A (2015) Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J Data Semant 4:29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-014-0038-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In: Dillenbourg P (ed) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Pergamon, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  16. Dorn C, Dustdar S (2011) Supporting dynamic, people-driven processes through self-learning of message flows. In: Mouratidis H, Rolland C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. CAiSE 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6741. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorn C, Taylor RN (2012) Architecture-driven modeling of adaptive collaboration structures in large-scale social web applications. In: Wang XS, Cruz I, Delis A, Huang G (eds) Web information systems—WISE 2012. WISE 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7651. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorn C, Dustdar S, Osterweil LJ (2014) Specifying flexible human behavior in interaction-intensive process environments. In: Sadiq S, Soffer P, Völzer H (eds) Business process management. BPM 2014. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8659. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuks H, Raposo A, Gerosa MA, Pimental M, Lucena C (2008) The 3C collaboration model. In: Encyclopedia of E-collaboration. IGI Global, pp 637–644. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-000-4.ch097
  20. Gutierrez FJ, Ochoa SF (2017) It takes at least two to tango: understanding the cooperative nature of elderly caregiving in Latin America. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, pp 1618–1630.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998314
  21. Hassen B, Mohamed M, Gargouri F (2019) A multi-criteria evaluation approach for selecting a sensitive business process modeling language for knowledge management. J Data Semant 8(3):157–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herskovic V, Ochoa SF, Pino JA (2009) Modeling groupware for mobile collaborative work. Int Conf on Comput Supported Coop Work Des.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2009.4968089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herskovic V, Ochoa SF, Pino JA (2019) Identifying groupware requirements in people-driven mobile collaborative processes. J Univers Comput Sci 25(8):988–1017Google Scholar
  24. Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chang SK, Sweller J (2003) The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol 38(1):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larkin JH, Herbert AS (1987) Why a diagram is (Sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci 11(1):65–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cass AG, Lerner, AS, McCall, EK, Osterweil LJ, Sutton SM, Wise A (2000) Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE’00), pp 754–757.  https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337623
  27. Martinie C, Palanque P, Winckler M (2011) Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In: Campos P, Graham N, Jorge J, Nunes N, Palanque P, Winckler M (eds) Human-computer interaction—INTERACT 2011. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monares A, Ochoa SF, Herskovic V, Santos R, Pino JA (2014) Modeling interactions in human-centric wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD’14), pp 661–666.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2014.6846923
  29. Moody D (2009) The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(6):756–779.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nova N, Wehrle T, Goslin J, Bourquin Y, Dillenbourg P (2007) Collaboration in a multi-user game: impacts of an awareness tool on mutual modeling. Multim Tools Appl 32(2):161–183.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0065-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OMG (2011) Case management model and notation (CMMN). www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/. Accessed 10 May 2019
  32. Paternò, F. (2000). The ConcurTaskTrees notation. In: Model-Based Design and evaluation of interactive applications, pp 39–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0445-24
  33. Pinelle D, Gutwin C (2006) Loose coupling and healthcare organizations: deployment strategies for groupware. Comput Supp Coop Work 15:537.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006-9031-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Solano A, Granollers T, Collazos CA, Rusu C (2014) Proposing formal notation for modeling collaborative processes extending HAMSTERS notation. In: Rocha Á, Correia AM, Tan FB, Stroetmann KA (eds) New perspectives in information systems and technologies, vol 1. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweller J (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learn Cogn 4:295–312Google Scholar
  36. Teruel MA, Navarro E, López-Jaquero V, Montero F, González P (2011) CSRML: a goal-oriented approach to model requirements for collaborative systems. In: Jeusfeld M, Delcambre L, Ling T-W (eds) Conceptual modeling-ER 2011. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van der Aalst W, Weske M, Dolf G (2005) Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl Eng 53(2):129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Faculty of MathematicsUniversidad Autónoma de YucatánMéridaMexico

Personalised recommendations