Advertisement

Selecting the ‘Invisible’ User Interface Development Tool

  • Joanna Lumsden

Abstract

Developers of interactive software are confronted by an increasing variety of software tools to help engineer the interactive aspects of software applications. Typically resorting to ad hoc means of tool selection, developers are often dissatisfied with their chosen tool on account of the fact that the tool lacks required functionality or does not fit seamlessly within the context in which it is to be used. This paper describes a system for evaluating the suitability of user interface development tools for use in software development organisations and projects such that the selected tool appears ‘invisible’ within its anticipated context of use. The paper also outlines and presents the results of an informal empirical study and a series of observational case studies of the system.

Keywords

UIDT evaluation selection context sensitive project-specific 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albers, M. J. (1996), Decision Making: A Missing Facet of Effective Documentation, in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation (SIGDOC’96) — Marshalling New Technological Forces: Building a Corporate, Academic and User-oriented Triangle, ACM Press, pp.57–65.Google Scholar
  2. Bass, L., Abowd, G. & Kazman, R. (1994), Issues in the Evaluation of User Interface Tools, in R. Taylor & J. Coutaz (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Engineering & Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 896 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, S. (1997), Encourage the Effective use of Contextual Information in Design, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  4. Harris, R. (1998), Introduction to Decision Making, Technical Report, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  5. Hart, S. & Staveland, L. (1988), Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, in P. Hancock & N. Meshkati (eds.), Human Mental Workload, North-Holland, pp. 139–83.Google Scholar
  6. Hart, S. G & Wickens, C. (1990), Workload Assessment and Prediction, in H. R. Booher (ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration, Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp.257–96.Google Scholar
  7. Hix, D. (1991), An Evaluation Procedure for User Interface Development Tools Version 2.0, Technical Report, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.Google Scholar
  8. Hix, D. & Ryan, T. (1992), Evaluating User Interface Development Tools, in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 36th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp.374–8.Google Scholar
  9. Hix, D. & Schulman, R. S. (1991), “Human-Computer Interface Development Tools: A Methodology for Their Evaluation”, Communications of the ACM 34(3), 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphrey, W. S. (1989), Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, S. & Holten, R. (1995), Goal Driven Business Modelling — Supporting Decision Making within Information Systems Development, in Proceedings of Conference on Organisational Computing Systems (COCS), ACM Press, pp.96–105.Google Scholar
  12. Kemerer, C. F. (1992), “How the Learning Curve Affects CASE Tool Adoption”, IEEE Software 9(3), 23–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lumsden, J. & Gray, P. (2000), SUIT — Context Sensitive Evaluation of User Interface Development Tools, in P. Palanque & F. Paternò (eds.), Proceedings of Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, Springer-Verlag, pp.91–108.Google Scholar
  14. Lumsden, J. M. (2001), SUIT — A Methodology and Framework for Selection of User Interface Development Tools, PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  15. McKirdy, J. (1998), An Empirical Study of the Relationships Between User Interface Development Tools & User Interface Development, Technical Report TR-1998-06, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  16. McKirdy, J. (1999), SUIT — A Framework & Methodology for the Selection of User Interface Development Tools Based on Fitness Criteria, Technical Report TR-1999-34, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  17. Myers, B. A. (1996), UIMSs, Toolkits, Interface Builders, Technical Report, Human Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Was at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/bam/www/toolnames.html but now no longer available.Google Scholar
  18. O’Neill, E. J. (1998), User-developer Cooperation in Software Development: Building Common Ground and Usable Systems, PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.Google Scholar
  19. Paulk, M. C, Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B. & Weber, C. V. (1993), “The Capability Maturity Model for Software”, IEEE Software 10(4), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rumble, C. D. (1991), The Human Element Approach to Decision Making... Let’s Try Reorganisation, in Proceedings of 19th ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, ACM Press, pp.345–50.Google Scholar
  21. Sauter, V. L. (1999), “Intuitive Decision-making”, Communications of the ACM 42(6), 109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon, H. (1986), Research Briefings 1986: Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving, Technical Report, National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Sundaram, S. & Ramamurthy, K. (1996), “A Measurement Methodology for Evaluating User Interface Management Systems”, Journal of Computer Information Systems 37(2), 54–61.Google Scholar
  24. Valaer, L. A. & Babb, R. G. (1997), “Choosing a User Interface Development Tool”, IEEE Software 14(4), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Lumsden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations