The Visual Computer

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 117–133 | Cite as

QUICK: a tool for graphical user-interface construction by non-programmers

  • Sarah Douglas
  • Eckehard Doerry
  • David Novick


The last decade has placed the superiority of graphical user interfaces over traditional text-based approaches beyond dispute. In almost all contexts, users have found graphical interfaces easier to learn, faster to use, and less error-prone. However, it has been shown that the creation of powerful graphical interfaces takes up to 80% of the time required to develop an application. In our work, we seek to extend the benefits of graphical interaction to the next layer of computer user—the interface designer. Our work in this area is distinguished from other efforts by two important differences. First, while other efforts focus primarily on the design of “standard” user interfaces, our approach emphasizes the creation of unique and innovative interfaces by supporting, among other things, arbitrary user-designed graphical representations, direct specification of animation, and digitized sound. Second, our goal is to cater to the nonprogrammer. Thus, we address a challenging trade-off: maximizing power and flexibility in an extremely simple environment. We explore the utility of the prototype object-oriented paradigm, a high-level userinterface language, and a direct-manipulation programming environment in this context.

Key words

User interface Toolkit Object-oriented languages 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apple (1987) Hypercard user's guide. Apple ComputerGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth PS (1986) An object-oriented approach to graphical interfaces. ACM Trans Graph 5(2):142–172Google Scholar
  3. Borning A (1979) ThinkLab — a constraint-oriented simulation laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Borning A (1986) Classes versus prototypes in object-oriented languages. Proc. ACM/IEEE Fall Joint Computer Conference, DallasGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardelli L (1987) Building user interfaces by direct manipulation. DEC Systems Research Center Technical Report No. 22.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas SA, Novick DG, Tomlin RS (1987) Consistency and variation in spatial reference. Proc Ninth International Conference on Cognitive Science, ScattleGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas SA, Doerry E, Novick DG (1990) QUICK: a user interface design kit for non-programmers. Proc. SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, SnowbirdGoogle Scholar
  8. Douglas SA, Doerry E, Novick D (1991) QUICK: exploring the middle ground in user interface design tools. Proc 24th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Kailua-KonaGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer G, Lemke AC (1988) Construction kits and design environments: steps toward human problem-domain communication. Hum-Comput Interact 3(3):179–222Google Scholar
  10. Fischer G, Lemke AC (1989) Knowledge-based design environments for user interface design. Submitted to the 11th International Conference on Software EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould L, Finzer W (1984) Programming by rehearsal. Technical Report No. SCL-84-1, Xerox PARC, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson DA (1986) The trillium user interface design environment. Proc. Human Factors in Computing, CHI'86, Boston, pp 221–227Google Scholar
  13. Lange B, Moher T (1986) Some strategies for reuse in a objectoriented programming environment. Proc Human Factors in Computing, CHI'89, Boston, pp 221–227Google Scholar
  14. Miyake N (1986) Constructive interaction and the interative process of understanding. Cognitive Sci 10:151–177Google Scholar
  15. Myers B (1986) Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. Proc Human Factors in Computing systems Conference CHI'86, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Myers B (1990) Creating user interfaces using programming by example, visual programming and constraints. ACM Trans Prog Lang Syst 12(2):143–177Google Scholar
  17. Newell A, Simon H (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmucker K (1986) MacApp: an application framework. BYTE 11 (8)Google Scholar
  19. Serius89 (1989) Serius89 Documentation Release 1.1. Serius CorporationGoogle Scholar
  20. Shaw M (1986) An input-output model for interactive systems. Proc Hum Fact Comput. CHI'86, Boston, pp 261–273Google Scholar
  21. Shneiderman B (1983) Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. IEEE Comput 16 (8):57–69Google Scholar
  22. Smethers Barnes (1989) Prototyper user's manual. Smethers Barnes Publishing Division, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith RG (1984) On the development of commercial expert systems. AI Magazine 5(3):61–73Google Scholar
  24. Stasko JT (1990) The path-transition paradigm: a practical methodology for adding animation to program interfaces. J Visual Lang Comput 1(3):213–236Google Scholar
  25. Stasko JT (1991) Using direct manipulation to build algorithm animations by demonstration. Proc Human Factors in Computing. CHI'91, New Orleans, pp 307–314Google Scholar
  26. Ungar D, Smith RB (1987) SELF: the power of simplicity. Proc Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications Conference, OrlandoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations