Automatic Adaptation of User Workflows within Model-Based User Interface Generation during Runtime on the Example of the SmartMote

  • Kai Breiner
  • Kai Bizik
  • Thilo Rauch
  • Marc Seissler
  • Gerrit Meixner
  • Philipp Diebold
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6761)

Abstract

Model-based universal interaction devices are already capable to react on contextual changes by automatically adapting the user interface, but without considering the usefulness of the resulting user interface. Often tasks cannot be executed any more or execution orders will result in dead locks caused by unavailable functionality. We present our approach of investigating this property of adapted models based on the example of the SmartMote in our living lab the SmartFactoryKL. Given the task description of the user interaction we determine a dialog model in terms of a state machine – which is necessary in our process of user interface generation – to determine possible execution orders leading to the accept state of this state machine. Using these execution orders the initial task model can be adapted, all misleading tasks can be removed and the resulting user interface will only offer valid user interactions.

Keywords

Adaptive User Interfaces Usage Context Task Fulfillment SmartFactory SmartMote Model-based User Interface Development 

References

  1. 1.
    Bizik, K.: Context Modeling in the Domain of Ambient Intelligent Production Environments, Diploma Thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breiner, K., et al.: SmartMote: Increasing the Flexibility of Run-Time Generated User Interfaces by Using UIML. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Visual Formalisms for Patterns (VFfP 2010), located at the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing 2010, Madrid, Spain (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breiner, K., Gauckler, V., Seissler, M., Meixner, G.: Evaluation of user interface adaptation strategies in the process of model-driven user interface development. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Model-Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI-2010), located at CHI 2010, CEUR-Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, United States, April 10 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breiner, K., Görlich, D., Maschino, O., Meixner G.: Towards automatically interfacing application services integrated in a automated model-based user interface generation process. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Model-Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI 2009), 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2009), Sanibel Island, Florida (2009) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breiner, K., Görlich, D., Maschino, O., Meixner, G., Zuehlke, D.: Run-time adaptation of an universal user interface. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2009), San Diego, CA (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Florins, M.: Graceful Degradation: A Method for Designing Multiplatform Graphical User Interfaces. PhD Thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meixner, G.: Model-based Useware Engineering. In: Proc. of the W3C Workshop on Future Standards for Model-Based User Interfaces (MBUI 2010), Rome, Italy (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paternò, F.: ConcurTaskTrees: An Engineered Notation for Task Models. In: Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paternò, F.: Tools for Task Modelling: Where we are, Where we are headed. In: Pribeanu, C., Vanderdonckt, J. (eds.) Proc. of the First International Workshop on Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design (TAMODIA 2002), pp. 10–17. INFOREC Publishing House, Bucharest (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paternò, F., Mancini, C., Meniconi, S.: ConcurTaskTrees: A Diagrammatic Notation for Specifying Task Models. In: Proc. of the 6th IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saridakis, T.: Design Pattern for Graceful Degradation. In: Noble, J., Johnson, R. (eds.) Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming I. LNCS, vol. 5770, pp. 67–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strang, T., Linhoff-Popien, C.: A Context Modeling Survey. Workshop on Advanced Context Modeling, Reasoning and Management. In: 6th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2004), Nottingham, England (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Streitz, N.A., Röcker, C., Prante, T., Stenzel, R., van Alphen, D.: Situated Interaction with Ambient Information: Facilitating Awareness and Communication in Ubiquitous Work Environments. In: 10th International Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (HCII 2003), Crete, Greece (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wurdel, M., Forbrig, P., Radhakrishnan, T., Sinnig, D.: Patterns for Task- and Dialog-Modeling. In: 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2007), Beijing, P.R. China (2007) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zühlke, D.: SmartFactory - A Vision becomes Reality. Keynote Paper of the 13th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, INCOM 2009 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Breiner
    • 1
  • Kai Bizik
    • 1
  • Thilo Rauch
    • 1
  • Marc Seissler
    • 2
  • Gerrit Meixner
    • 3
  • Philipp Diebold
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Research GroupUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Center for Human-Machine-InteractionUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)KaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations