A Visual Tool for Analysing IoT Trigger/Action Programming

  • Luca Corcella
  • Marco Manca
  • Fabio PaternòEmail author
  • Carmen Santoro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11262)


The Trigger-Action programming paradigm has been widely adopted in the last few years, especially in the Internet of Things (IoT) domain because it allows end users without programming experience to describe how their applications should react to the many events that can occur in such very dynamic contexts. Several end user development tools exist, in both the research and industrial fields, which aim to support the increasing need to specify such rules. Thus, it becomes important for application developers and domain experts to enrich such environments with functionalities able to monitor how users actually interact with such rule editors, and show useful information to analyse the end user activity. In this paper, we present a visual tool for monitoring and analysing how users interact with a trigger-action rule editor. The goal is to provide a tool useful to better understand what end users’ personalization needs are, how they are expressed, how users actually specify rules, and whether users encounter any issues in interacting with the personalization features offered by the editors. The proposed solution supports the analysis through a dashboard and a set of timelines describing the actual use of the personalization tool, with the possibility to select specific events of interest. It moreover provides data useful for understanding the types of triggers, actions and rules actually composed by users, and whether they effectively exploit the personalization features offered.


Trigger action programming Visual analytics Log user interaction Internet of Things applications 


  1. 1.
    Atterer, R., Wnuk, M., Schmidt, A.: Knowing the user’s every move: user activity tracking for website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 203–212 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coutaz, J., Crowley, J.L.: A first-person experience with end-user development for smart homes. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 15(2), 26–39 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desolda, G., Ardito, C., Matera, M.: End-user development for the internet of things: EFESTO and the 5W composition paradigm. In: Daniel, F., Gaedke, M. (eds.) RMC 2016. CCIS, vol. 696, pp. 74–93. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fogli, D., Peroni, M., Stefini, C.: ImAtHome: making trigger-action programming easy and fun. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 42, 60–75 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghiani, G., Manca, M., Paternò, F., Santoro, C.: Personalization of context-dependent applications through trigger-action rules. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 24(2), 3 (2017). Article 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harms, P., Grabowski, J.: Usage-based automatic detection of usability smells. In: Sauer, S., Bogdan, C., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R., Winckler, M. (eds.) HCSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8742, pp. 217–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hilbert, D.M., Redmiles, D.F.: Extracting usability information from user interface events. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 384–421 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, J., Cakmak, M.: Supporting mental model accuracy in trigger-action programming. In Proceedings of UbiComp 2015, pp. 215–225. ACM, New York (2015).
  9. 9.
    Metaxas, G., Markopoulos, P.: Natural contextual reasoning for end users. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 24(2), 36 (2017). Article 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mi, X., Qian, F., Zhang, Y., Wang, X.: An empirical characterization of IFTTT: ecosystem, usage, and performance. In: IMC 2017, pp. 398–404 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nandi, C., Ernst, M.D.: Automatic trigger generation for rule-based smart homes. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (PLAS 2016), pp. 97–102. ACM, New York.
  12. 12.
    Palmer, J.W.: Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(2), 151–167 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paternò, F., Schiavone, A.G., Conte, A.: Customizable automatic detection of bad usability smells in mobile accessed web applications. In: Proceedings Mobile HCI 2017, Article No. 42, Vienna. ACM Press, September 2017Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Santana, V.F., Calani Baranauskas, M.C.: WELFIT: a remote evaluation tool for identifying web usage patterns through client-side logging. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 76(C), 40–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segura, V.C.V.B., Barbosa, S.D.J.: HistoryViewer: Instrumenting a Visual Analytics Application to Support Revisiting a Session of Interactive Data Analysis. In: PACMHCI. EICS, vol. 1, pp. 11:1–11:18 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terrier, L., Demeure, A., Caffiau, S.: CCBL: a language for better supporting context centered programming in the smart home. In: Proceedings of ACM Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, EICS 2017, Article 14, 18 p., June 2017.
  17. 17.
    Ur, B., McManus, E., Ho, M.P.Y., Littman, M.L.: Practical trigger-action programming in the smart home. In: Proceedings of CHI 2014, pp. 803–812. ACM, New York
  18. 18.
    Ur, B., et al.: Trigger-action programming in the wild: an analysis of 200,000 IFTTT recipes. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016), pp. 3227–3231. ACM, New York (2016).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Corcella
    • 1
  • Marco Manca
    • 1
  • Fabio Paternò
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carmen Santoro
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR-ISTI, HIIS LaboratoryPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations