Reusing models and properties in the analysis of similar interactive devices

  • Michael D. Harrison
  • José Creissac Campos
  • Paolo Masci
SI: FMIS

Abstract

The paper is concerned with the comparative analysis of interactive devices. It compares two devices by checking systematically a set of template properties that are designed to explore important interface characteristics. The two devices are designed to support similar tasks in a clinical setting. The devices differ as a result of judgements based on a range of considerations including software. Variations between designs are often relatively subtle and do not always become evident through even relatively thorough user testing. Notwithstanding their subtlety, these differences may be important to the safety or usability of the device. The illustrated approach uses formal techniques to provide the analysis. This means that similar analysis can be applied systematically.

Keywords

Modal action logic IVY Medical devices Procurement Interactive systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Amnell T, Behrmann G, Bengtsson J, D’Argenio PR, David A, Fehnker A, Hune T, Jeannet B, Larsen KG, Möller MO, Pettersson P, Weise C, Yi W (2001) UPPAAL-Now, Next, and Future. In: Cassez F, Jard C, Rozoy B, Ryan M (eds) Modelling and Verification of Parallel Processes, number 2067 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science Tutorial, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 100–125Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arney D, Kim B, Jetley R, Jones P, Lee I, Ray A, Sokolsky O, Zhang Y (0000) Safety requirements for the generic patient controlled analgesia pump. http://rtg.cis.upenn.edu/gip.php3
  3. 3.
    B. Braun Melsungen AG (2007) B.Braun Infusomat Space User Manual. Technical report, B. Braun Melsungen AG, 34209 Melsungen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bligard L-A, Osvalder A-L (2007) An analytical approach for predicting and identifying use error and usability problem. In: Holzinger A (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd Human-computer interaction and usability engineering of the Austrian computer society conference on HCI and usability for medicine and health care, number 4799 in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 427–440Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolton ML, Bass EJ (2010) Formally verifying human-automation interaction as part of a system model: limitations and tradeoffs. Innov Syst Softw Eng 6(3):219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolton ML, Bass EJ, Sininiceanu RI (2012) Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction using model checking. Intern J Hum Comput Stud 70: 888–906Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolton ML, Bass EJ, Siminiceanu RI (2013) Using formal verification to evaluate human-automation interaction, a review. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans 99:1–16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campos JC (2012) Minho HCI repository. http://hcispecs.di.uminho.pt
  9. 9.
    Campos JC, Harrison MD (2001) Model checking interactor specifications. Autom Softw Eng 8:275–310CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campos JC, Harrison MD (2008) Systematic analysis of control panel interfaces using formal tools. In: Graham N, Palanque P (eds) Interactive systems: Design, Specification and Verification, DSVIS ’08, number 5136 in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 72–85Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campos JC, Harrison MD (2009) Interaction engineering using the IVY tool. In: Calvary G, Graham TCN, Gray P (eds) Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, ACM Press, New York, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campos JC, Harrison MD (2011) Modelling and analysing the interactive behaviour of an infusion pump. Electronic Communications of the EASST, 5, San RamonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campos JC, Harrison MD (1997) Formally Verifying Interactive Systems: A Review. In: Harrison MD, Torres JC (eds) Proceedings on the 4th Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSVIS), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 119–134Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cardinal Health Inc (2006) Alaris GP volumetric pump: directions for use. Technical report, Cardinal Health, 1180 Rolle, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M, Sebastiani R, Tacchella A (2002) NuSMV 2: An Open Source Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In: Larsen KG, Brinksma E (eds) Computer-Aided Verification (CAV ’02), vol 2404, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model Checking. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moura de L (2004) SAL: Tutorial. Technical report, SRI International. Computer Science Laboratory, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R (1993) Human-Computer Interaction. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dix AJ (1991) Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doherty G, Campos JC, Harrison MD (2008) Resources for situated actions. In: Graham N, Palanque P (eds) Interactive systems: Design, Specification and Verification, DSVIS ’08, vol 5136. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 194–207Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duke DJ, Harrison MD (1993) Abstract interaction objects. Comput Gr Forum 12(3):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fiadeiro J, Maibaum T, Bakker de J, Roever de W, Rozenberg G (1991) Describing, structuring and implementing objects. In: Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages, number 489 in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 274–310Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fields RE (2001) Analysis of erroneous actions in the design of critical systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, Heslington, YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    US Food and Drug Administration (2010) Infusion pump improvement initiative. Technical report, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. University of York, New yorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heymann M, Degani A (2007) Formal analysis and automatic generation of user interfaces: approach, methodology, and an algorithm. J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 49(2):311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental Models. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim B, Ayoub A, Sokolsky O, Lee I, Jones P, Zhang Y, Jetley R (2011) Safety-assured development of the GPCA infusion pump software. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM international conference on Embedded software, EMSOFT ’11, ACM, New York, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirwan B, Ainsworth L (1992) A Guide to Task Analysis. Taylor and Francis, LodonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lane R, Stanton NA, Harrison D (2006) Applying hierarchical task analysis to medication administration errors. Appl Ergon 37:669–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsen KG, Pettersson P, Yi W (1997) UPPAAL in a Nutshell. Int J Softw Tool Technol Transf 1(1—-2):134–152CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Masci P, Rukšėnas R, Oladimeji P, Cauchi A, Gimblett A, Li Y, Curzon P, Thimbleby H (2011) On formalising interactive number entry on infusion pumps, vol 45. ECEASST, BoltonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen J, Molich R (1990) Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Chew J, Whiteside J (eds) ACM CHI Proceedings CHI ’90: Empowering, People, New York, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oladimeji P (2012) Alaris simulation. http://cs.swan.ac.uk/cspo/simulations
  34. 34.
    Oladimeji P, Thimbleby H, Cox A (2011) Number entry and their effects on error detection. In: Campos P et al (eds) Interact 2011, number 6949 in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 178–185 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paternò F, Faconti G (1992) On the Use of LOTOS to Describe Graphical Interaction. In: Monk A, Diaper D, Harrison MD (eds) People and Computers VII: HCI ’92 Conference, Cambridge University Press, BCS HCI Specialist Group, Cambridge, pp 155–174Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruksenas R, Back J, Curzon P, Blandford A (2009) Verification-guided modelling of salience and cognitive load. Form Asp Comput 21:541–569Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ryan M, Fiadeiro J, Maibaum T (1991) Sharing actions and attributes in modal action logic. In Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, volume 526 of Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 569–593Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thimbleby H, Cairns P (2010) Reducing number entry errors: solving a widespread, serious problem. J R Soc Interf 7(51):1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thimbleby H, Gimblett A (2011) Dependable keyed data entry for interactive systems, vol 45. ECEASST, BoltonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thimbleby H (2007) Interaction walkthrough: evaluation of safety critical interactive systems. In: Doherty G, Blandford A (eds Interactive Systems: Design, Specification and Verification, number 4323 in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 52–66Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thimbleby H (2007) Press on: principles of interaction programming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang J, Johnson TR, Patel VL, Paige DL, Kuboseb T (2003) Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inform 36:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Harrison
    • 1
    • 3
  • José Creissac Campos
    • 2
  • Paolo Masci
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade do Minho and HASLab, INESC TECBragaPortugal
  3. 3.School of Electronic Engineering and Computer ScienceQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations