Coupling interaction specification with functionality description
In this paper, the solution used in the context of SEPDS (a Software Development Environment) to the problem of combining interactive behavior specification with functionality description of a distributed interactive application is presented. This solution consists of combining two specification models: IDFG to describe the interactive aspects of applications developed with the system and EDFG to describe their functionality. Both these models are data flow graph based and can be classified as process models. They use ”actors” to represent performers of processes and ”links” to represent data buffering and exchange, as well as roles and different perspectives. Although the two models have many semantical differences, they also have many common properties, that is why they can be straightforwardly combined in a process that enables designers think in users terms. To this end, action actors are used to represent the functions supported by the application, and context actors to represent the application user interface functions. In addition, links are used to represent the events that take place in the system (these may be user or system actions), the effects that these have on the screen, the context into which these take place and the goals that may be achieved using the application. Furthermore, the reusability and prototyping tools of SEPDS can be used to construct and test the application design.
KeywordsUser Action Action Actor Actor Firing Functionality Description Context Actor
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- J.D. Foley, D. J. M. J. de Baar and K.E. Mullet, Coupling application design and user interface design. Proceedings of the CHI92 Conference: Striking a balance, May 3–7, 1992, Monterey, USA, pp 259–266.Google Scholar
- J. Bonar and B. Liffick, Communicating with high-level plans. In Intelligent User Interfaces (J. Sullivan and S. Tyler eds), ACM Press, 1991, pp 129–157.Google Scholar
- R. Buhr, G. Karam, C. Hayes and C. Woodside, Software CAD: A revolutionary approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., SE-15(3), March 1989.Google Scholar
- B. Curtis, M.I. Kellner and J. Over, Process modeling. Comm. of the ACM 35(9), September 1992, pp 75–90.Google Scholar
- A. J. Dix and C. Runciman, Abstract models of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on People and Computers: Designing the Interface (P. Johnson and S. Cook eds), Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp 13–22.Google Scholar
- P. Henderson, editor, Proceedings of the second SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN Software Engineering Symposium on Practical Software Development Environments. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol 22, January 1989.Google Scholar
- C. Jard, J. Monin and R. Groz, Development of VEDA, a prototyping tool for distributed algorithms. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., SE-14(3), March 1988.Google Scholar
- A. Kameas, S. Papadimitriou, P. Pintelas and G. Pavlides, IDFG: an interactive applications specification model with phenomenological properties. Proceedings of the EUROMICRO93 Conference, September 6–9, 1993, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
- A. Levy, J. van Katwijk, G. Pavlides and F. Tolsma, SEPDS: A support environment for prototyping distributed systems. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on System Integration, April 1990, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
- S. Papadimitriou, A. Kameas, P. Fitsilis and G. Pavlides, A new compression technique for tools that use data-flow graphs to model distributed real-time applications. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Engineering and its Applications, December 7–11 1992, Toulouse, France, pp 235–244.Google Scholar
- H. Thimbleby, User Interface Design. ACM Press, 1990, p 470.Google Scholar