In recent years, advances in software tools have made it easier to analyze interactive system specifications, and the range of their possible behaviors. However, the effort involved in producing the specifications of the system is still substantial, and a difficulty exists regarding the specification of plausible behaviors on the part of the user. Recent trends in technology towards more mobile and distributed systems further exacerbates the issue, as contextual factors come in to play, and less structured, more opportunistic behavior on the part of the user makes purely task-based analysis difficult. In this paper we consider a resourced action approach to specification and analysis. In pursuing this approach we have two aims - firstly, to facilitate a resource-based analysis of user activity, allowing resources to be distributed across a number of artifacts, and secondly to consider within the analysis a wider range of plausible and opportunistic user behaviors without a heavy specification overhead, or requiring commitment to detailed user models.


Mobile Device Model Check Situate Action Mode Error Smart Environment 
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. 1.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on Uppaal. In: Bernardo, M., Corradini, F. (eds.) SFM-RT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3185, pp. 200–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blandford, A., Furniss, D.: DiCoT: A Methodology for Applying Distributed Cognition to the Design of Teamworking Systems. In: Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 26–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campos, J.C., Doherty, G.: Supporting resource based analysis of task information needs. In: Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 188–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campos, J.C., Harrison, M.D.: Model checking interactor specifications. Automated Software Engineering 8(3-4), 275–310 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loer, K., Harrison, M.D.: Analysing user confusion in context aware mobile applications. In: Costabile, M.F., Paternó, F. (eds.) INTERACT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3585, pp. 184–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nilsson, J., Sokoler, T., Binder, T., Wetcke, N.: Beyond the Control Room: Mobile Devices for Spatially Distributed Interaction on Industrial Process Plants. In: Thomas, P., Gellersen, H.-W. (eds.) HUC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1927, pp. 1–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polson, P.G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., Wharton, C.: Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 36(5) (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suchman, L.A.: Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright, P.C., Fields, R.E., Harrison, M.D.: Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: the resources model. Human Computer Interaction 15(1), 1–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gavin Doherty
    • 1
  • Jose Campos
    • 2
  • Michael Harrison
    • 3
  1. 1.Trinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.University of MinhoPortugal
  3. 3.Newcastle UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations