Advertisement

Using Abstraction with Interaction Sequences for Interactive System Modelling

  • Jessica Turner
  • Judy Bowen
  • Steve Reeves
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11176)

Abstract

Interaction sequences can be used as an abstraction of an interactive system. We can use such models to consider or verify properties of a system for testing purposes. However, interaction sequences have the potential to become unfeasibly long, leading to models which are intractable. We propose a method of reducing the state space of such sequences using the self-containment property. This allows us to hide (and subsequently expand) some of the model describing parts of the system not currently under consideration. Interaction sequences and their models can therefore be used to control the state space size of the models we create as an abstraction of an interactive system.

Keywords

Interaction sequences Interactive system testing Formal methods 

References

  1. 1.
    Banu-Demergian, I.T., Stefanescu, G.: Towards a formal representation of interactive systems. Fundam. Inform. 131(3–4), 313–336 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barboni, E., Ladry, J.F., Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Winckler, M.: Beyond modelling: an integrated environment supporting co-execution of tasks and systems models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 165–174. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauersfeld, S., Vos, T.E.: GUItest: a Java library for fully automated GUI robustness testing. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 330–333. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowen, J., Reeves, S.: Formal models for user interface design artefacts. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 4(2), 125–141 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campos, J.C., Fayollas, C., Gonçalves, M., Martinie, C., Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Pinto, M.: A more intelligent test case generation approach through task models manipulation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1(1), 9 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopcroft, J.E.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Pearson Education, London (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, C.Y., Chang, J.R., Chang, Y.H.: Design and analysis of GUI test-case prioritization using weight-based methods. J. Syst. Softw. 83(4), 646–659 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ip, C.N., Dill, D.L.: Better verification through symmetry. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 9(1–2), 41–75 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Winckler, M.: Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 589–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23765-2_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, B.N., Robbins, B., Banerjee, I., Memon, A.: GUITAR: an innovative tool for automated testing of GUI-driven software. Autom. Softw. Eng. 21(1), 65–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paternò, F., Zini, E.: Applying information visualization techniques to visual representations of task models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Task Models and Diagrams, pp. 105–111. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porrello, A.M.: Death and denial: the failure of the THERAC-25, a medical linear accelerator. Website (ND). http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html. Accessed 27 July 2015
  13. 13.
    Salem, P.: Practical programming, validation and verification with finite-state machines: a library and its industrial application. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, pp. 51–60. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spano, L.D., Fenu, G.: IceTT: a responsive visualization for task models. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 197–200. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Economist: When code can kill or cure, June 2012. http://www.economist.com/node/21556098. Accessed 9 Dec 2015
  16. 16.
    Thimbleby, H.: Contributing to safety and due diligence in safety-critical interactive systems development by generating and analyzing finite state models. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing systems, pp. 221–230. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thimbleby, H.: Action graphs and user performance analysis. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71(3), 276–302 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing: A Tools Approach. Morgan Kaufmann-Elsevier Inc., Burlington (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    White, L., Almezen, H., Alzeidi, N.: User-based testing of GUI sequences and their interactions. In: Proceedings of 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2001, pp. 54–63. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations