Contextsensitive help-facilities in GUIs through situations
Standard Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) or User Interface Management Systems (UIMS) fail to supply a user with sufficient information about its usage. These systems usually provide a uniform representation of interfaces for different applications but lack the possibility to represent the application specific context and functionality adequately. Help in these systems is typically limited to the explanation of the GUI and a separate explanation about the functions of the application.
We introduce SUSI a ‘Situation-oriented USer Interface model’ which is a knowledge representation designed to represent both the functionality of the GUI and of the application. An important characteristic of this account is the explicit representation of contexts and the effects of useractions in a current context. It will be briefly demonstrated how useful help-tools for application and GUI can easily be build upon this knowledge representation.
KeywordsHelp facilities context Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) self-descriptiveness transparency
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [Ader, Tueni 87]Ader, M., Tueni, M.: An Office Assistant Prototype Using a Knowledge-Based Office Model on a Personal Workstation, in [ESPRIT 87], p. 1205–1225.Google Scholar
- [Barwise, Perry 83]Barwise Jon, Perry John: Situation and Attitudes, MIT 1983.Google Scholar
- [Brezillon 1993]Brezillon, Patrick (ed.): Proceedings of the IJCAI-93 Workshop on ‘Using Knowledge in its Context', Laforia 93/13 University Paris 1993.Google Scholar
- [Cooper, Mukai, Perry 90]Cooper Robin, Mukai Kunaiki, Perry John (eds.): Situation Theory and its Applications, Volume I, CSLI Lecture Notes 22, Stanford, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Edmonds 82]Edmonds E. A.: The man-computer interface — a note on concepts and design. International Journal of Man-Machine-Studies, 16, 1982, p. 231–236.Google Scholar
- [ESPRIT 87]ESPRIT Results and Achievements, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.Google Scholar
- [ISO 9241 Part 10]Ergonomic Dialogue Design Criteria, Version 3, Committee Draft, December 1990.Google Scholar
- [Lu, Vanneste, Ader 90]Lu, Gang, Vanneste, Claude, Ader, Martin: End-User Dialogue Context Management of Office Automation Systems, in: Human-Computer Interaction — INTERACT 90, Diaper, D. et. al. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam 1990, p. 535–541.Google Scholar
- [Marke, Jonckers, Daelemans 87]von Marcke, K., Jonckers, V., Daelemans, W.: Representation Aspects of Knowledge-Based Office Systems, in [ESPRIT 87], p. 1226–1238Google Scholar
- [Opperman, et. al. 92]Oppermann, Rinhard, Murchner, Bernd, Reiterer, Harald, Koch, Manfred: Softwareergonomische Evaluation — Der Leitfaden Evadis II, de Gruyter, Berlin 1992. An older report in english is available as GMD-Report No. 169: Evaluating of dialog systems (EVADIS), St. Augustin, Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH, 1989.Google Scholar
- [Shoham 91]Shoham, Yoav: Varieties of Context, in: ‘Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: papers in honor of John McCarthy', Vladimir Lifschitz (ed.), Academic Press 1991.Google Scholar
- [Strauss 1992]Strauss Friedrich: Situationen in der Mensch — Computer — Interaktion. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium for information science, Man and Machine — Informational Interfaces of Communication, Zimmermann (eds.), Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1992.Google Scholar
- [Suchman 1987]Suchman Lucy A.: Plans and Sitated Actions, The problem of human machine communication, Cambridge MA, 1987.Google Scholar