Connecting Rigorous System Analysis to Experience-Centered Design

  • Michael Harrison
  • José Creissac Campos
  • Gavin Doherty
  • Karsten Loer
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This chapter explores the role that formal modelling may play in aiding the visualization and implementation of usability, with a particular emphasis on experience requirements in an ambient and mobile system. Mechanisms for requirements elicitation and evaluation are discussed, as well as the role of scenarios and their limitations in capturing experience requirements. The chapter then discusses the role of formal modelling by revisiting an analysis based on an exploration of traditional usability requirements before moving on to consider requirements more appropriate to a built environment. The role of modelling within the development process is re-examined by looking at how models may incorporate knowledge relating to user experience, and how the results of the analysis of such models may be exploited by human factors and domain experts in their consideration of user experience issues.


Model Check Domain Expert Usability Requirement Mobile System Linear Temporal Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agile working group (2004). The agile manifesto. Scholar
  2. Bannon, L. (2005). A human-centred perspective on interaction design. In A. Pirhonen, H. Isomäki, C. Roast, P. Saariluoma (Eds.), Future Interaction Design (pp. 31–52). Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  3. Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., & Zanolin, L. (2005). Modeling and validation of publish /subscribe architectures. In S. Beydeda & V. Gruhn (Eds.), Testing Commercial-off-the-shelf Components and Systems (pp. 273–292). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Behrmann, G., David, A., & Larsen, K. (2004). A tutorial on uppaal. In M. Bernardo & F. Corradini, F. (Eds.), Formal methods for the design of real-time systems. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science nˆ 3185 (pp. 200–236). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. In Proceedings Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’00) (pp. 424–433). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campos, J. & Doherty, G. (2006). Supporting resource-based analysis of task information needs. In M. Harrison & S. Gilroy (Eds.), Proceedings 12th International Workshop on the Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science nˆ 3941 (pp. 188–200). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Campos, J. & Harrison, M. (2001). Model checking interactor specifications. Automated Software Engineering, 8, 275–310.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. De Nicola, R., Latella, D., & Massink, M. (2005). Formal modelling and quantitative analysis of KLAIM-based mobile systems. In H. Haddad, L. Liebrock, A. Omicini, R. Wainwright, M. Palakal, M. Wilds, H. Clausen (Eds.), Applied Computing 2005: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 428–435).Google Scholar
  9. Doherty, G., Massink, M., & Faconti, G. (2001). Using hybrid automata to support human factors analysis in a critical system. Journal of Formal Methods in System Design, 19(2), 143–164.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (2004). Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fields, R. (2001). Analysis of erroneous actions in the design of critical systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD.Google Scholar
  12. Garlan, D., Khersonsky, S., & Kim, J. (2003). Model checking publish-subscribe systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software (SPIN 03), Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  13. Gaver, W., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. ACM Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, W., & Salzman, M. (1998). Damaged merchandise? a review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human Computer Interaction 13(3), 203–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grudin, J. & Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In Proceedings PDC 2002pp. 144–161).Google Scholar
  16. Halnass, L. & Redstrom, J. (2002). From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(2), 106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8, 231–274.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, M., & Loer, K. (2006). Time as a dimension in the design and analysis of interactive systems. Technical Report CS-TR-980, School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, C., Polson, P., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990). Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. In: J. Chew & J. Whiteside (Eds.), ACM-CHI 90 (pp. 235–242). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Loer, K., & Harrison, M. (2004). Analysing and modelling context in mobile systems to support design. Technical Report CS-TR-876, School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  21. Loer, K., & Harrison, M. (2005). Analysing user confusion in context aware mobile applications. In M. Constabile M & F. Paternó (Eds.), Proceedings INTERACT 2005, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science nˆ 3585 (pp. 184–197). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Loer, K., & Harrison, M. (2006). An integrated framework for the analysis of dependable interactive systems (IFADIS): its tool support and evaluation. Automated Software Engineering, 13(4), 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loer K, Hildebrandt, M., & Harrison, M. (2004). Analysing dynamic function scheduling decisions. In C. Johnson & P. Palanque (Eds.), Human Error, Safety and Systems Development (pp. 45–60). Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  24. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. McMillan, K. (1993) Symbolic model checking. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Nielsen, J. (1992). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In Proc. of ACM CHI’92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 249–256). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Nilsson, J., Sokoler, T., Binder, T., & Wetcke, N. (2000). Beyond the control room: mobile devices for spatially distributed interaction on industrial process plants. In P.Thomas & H. W. Gellersen (Eds.), Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, HUC’2000, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science nˆ 1927 (pp. 30–45). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Pocock, S., Harrison, M., Wright, P., & Johnson, P. (2001). THEA: A technique for human error assessment early in design. In M. Hirose (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT’01 IFIP TC.13 International Conference on human computer interaction (pp. 247–254). IOS Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosson, M., & Carroll, J. (2002). Usability Engineering: scenario-based development of human computer interaction. Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  30. ten Beek, M., Massink, M., & Latella, D. (2006). Towards model checking stochastic aspects of the thinkteam user interface. In M. Harrison & S. Gilroy (Eds.), Proceedings 12th International Workshop on the Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science nˆ 3941(pp. 39–50). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Harrison
    • 1
  • José Creissac Campos
    • 2
  • Gavin Doherty
    • 3
  • Karsten Loer
    • 4
  1. 1.Informatics Research InstituteNewcastle UniversityUK
  2. 2.Department of Informatics/CCTCUniversity of MinhoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceTrinity College DublinIreland
  4. 4.Division Strategic Research and DevelopmentGermanischer Lloyd AGGermany

Personalised recommendations