Cluster Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1853–1863 | Cite as

On energy impact of web user interface approaches

  • Tomas CernyEmail author
  • Michael Jeff Donahoo


Developers base selection of a User Interface (UI) development approach on functionality, development and maintenance costs, usability, responsiveness, etc. User expectations continue to grow for greater functionality and continuous interactivity, extending demands on computational resources. To facility scale, recent approaches push more UI computation to clients. Such client-side delegation of functionality increase, continuous usage, and localized computation create ever-growing energy demands, which may negatively impact battery life on mobile platforms. Nonetheless, developers given little attention to the power demands aspects of UI framework selection. We evaluate the impact of contemporary UI framework selection on resource utilization and energy consumption. We suggest an alternative delivery approach designed to preserve low energy demands on clients while still allowing offloading of computation from server to client. Our work focuses on web-based mobile applications; however, we believe our approach to energy demand reduction and framework evaluation to be generally applicable.


Energy impact User interface design Separation of concerns Resource distribution Web applications 



This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Technical University in Prague, Grant No. SGS14/198/OHK3/3T/13.


  1. 1.
    Balme, L., Demeure, A., Barralon, N., Coutaz, J., Calvary, G.: Cameleon-rt: a software architecture reference model for distributed, migratable, and plastic user interfaces. Ambient Intell. 3295, 291–302 (2004).
  2. 2.
    Bures, M.: Framework for assessment of web application automated testability. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems, pp. 512–514. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns, E., Griffin, N.: JavaServer Faces 2.0, The Complete Reference, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, A., Heiser, G.: An analysis of power consumption in a smartphone. In: Proceedings of the 2010 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIXATC’10, pp. 21–21. USENIX Association, Berkeley, (2010).
  5. 5.
    Cerny, T., Cemus, K., Donahoo, M.J., Song, E.: Aspect-driven, data-reflective and context-aware user interfaces design. Appl. Comput. Rev. 13(4), 53–65 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerny, T., Donahoo, M.J.: Impact of remote user interface design and delivery on energy demand. In: 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Security (ICISS), pp. 1–4. IEEE, Prague (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cerny, T., Donahoo, M.J.: On separation of platform-independent particles in user interfaces. Clust. Comput. 18, 1215–1228 (2015). doi: 10.1007/s10586-015-0471-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cerny, T., Macik, M., Donahoo, J., Janousek, J.: On distributed concern delivery in user interface design. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 655–681 (2015). doi: 10.2298/CSIS141202021C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dayarathna, M., Wen, Y., Fan, R.: Data center energy consumption modeling: a survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 18(1), 732–794 (2016). doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2481183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman, A.: Pro AngularJS, 1st edn. Apress, Berkely (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc, Boston (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanson, R., Tacy, A.: GWT in Action: Easy Ajax with the Google Web Toolkit. Manning Publications Co., Greenwich (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnsson, B., Akenine-Möller, T.: Measuring per-frame energy consumption of real-time graphics applications. J. Comput. Graph. Tech. (JCGT) 3(1), 60–73 (2014).
  14. 14.
    Karu, M.: A textual domain specific language for user interface modelling. In: Emerging Trends in Computing, Informatics, Systems Sciences, and Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 151, pp. 985–996. Springer, New York (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3558-7_84
  15. 15.
    Kennard, R., Edmonds, E., Leaney, J.: Separation anxiety: stresses of developing a modern day separable user interface. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Human System Interactions, HSI’09, pp. 225–232. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2009).
  16. 16.
    Kiczales, G., Irwin, J., Lamping, J., Loingtier, J.M., Lopes, C.V., Maeda, C., Mendhekar, A.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: IECOOP’97-Object-Oriented Programming, 11th European Conference, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, M., Ju, Y., Chae, J., Park, M.: A simple model for estimating power consumption of a multicore server system. Int. J. Multimed. Ubiquitous Eng. 9(2), 153–160 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehmann, G., Blumendorf, M., Albayrak, S.: Development of context-adaptive applications on the basis of runtime user interface models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS ’10, pp. 309–314. ACM, New York (2010). doi: 10.1145/1822018.1822068
  19. 19.
    Limbourg, Q., Vanderdonckt, J., Michotte, B., Bouillon, L., López-Jaquero, V.: USIXML: a language supporting multi-path development of user interfaces engineering human computer interaction and interactive systems. In: Bastide, R., Palanque, P., Roth, J. (eds.) Engineering Human Computer Interaction and Interactive Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 134–135. Springer, Berlin (2005). doi: 10.1007/11431879_12 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    López-Jaquero, V., Montero, F., Real, F.: Designing user interface adaptation rules with t: Xml. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’09, pp. 383–388. ACM, New York (2009). doi: 10.1145/1502650.1502705
  21. 21.
    Macik, M., Cerny, T., Slavik, P.: Context-sensitive, cross-platform user interface generation. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 8(2), 217–229 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s12193-013-0141-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minas, L., Ellison, B.: The Problem of Power Consumption in Servers. Intel Press, Hillsboro (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mogul, J.C.: The case for persistent-connection http. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 25(4), 299–313 (1995). doi: 10.1145/217391.217465
  24. 24.
    Schlee, M., Vanderdonckt, J.: Generative programming of graphical user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, AVI ’04, pp. 403–406. ACM (2004). doi: 10.1145/989863.989936
  25. 25.
    Varaksin, O., Caliskan, M.: PrimeFaces Cookbook. Packt Publishing, Birmingham (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, J.H., Shin, S.S., Chien, J.L., Chao, W.: An extended mda method for user interface modeling and transformation. In: Osterle H., Schelp J., Winter R. (eds) Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems, IHsieh M-C (2007), pp. 1632–1642. (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, FEECzech Technical UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations