A Coherent Specification Method For the User Interface Of Documentation Systems

  • J. Preece
  • G. Davies
  • M. Woodman
  • D. C. Ince


There is no coherent methodology for specifying the design of the user interface of documentation systems. Foley and Van Dam [8] have produced a four stage methodology which provides a valuable framework for making design decisions. It is a landmark in interface design methodology; However, it has many weaknesses. For example, it is difficult to map from one stage to the next and the stages need refining into more usable sub-stages. In the first part of our paper we demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of Foley and Van Dam’s methodology by describing its application to a graphics documentation system. In the last part of our paper we describe the prototype of a new methodology.


User Interface Documentation System Interface Design Formal Grammar Data Flow Diagram 
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]
    Moran T. P., The Command Language Grammar: a Representation for the User Interface of Interactive Computer Systems. Int. J Man-Machine Studies. 15, 3–50, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Parnas D.L., On the Use of Transition Diagrams in the Design of a User Interface for an Interactive Computer System. Proceedings 24th National ACM Conference. New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Sibert R., Workstation User Interface Design. Computer Graphics Consultants, Inc. 1982.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gould J.D. and Lewis C., Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think. Comms. of the ACM, 28, 300–310, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Sutherland S., PRESTEL and the User: A Survey of Psychological and Ergonomics Research, University of Sussex, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Reynolds L., The Presentation of Bibliographic Information on Prestel, Royal College of Art, BLR & D Report 5536, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Davis E.G. and Swezey R.W., Human Factors Guidelines in Computer Graphics: a Case Study. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 18, 113–133, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Foley J.D. and van Dam A., Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics, Addison-Wesley, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ince D.C. Syntactic Description of Graphical Notations and Its Application to the Rapid Construction of Software Tools. S.E.R.C Grant GR/D/60362.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Buxton W., Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics. 31–37, January 1983.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Nielsen J., A Virtual Model for Computer-human Interaction. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies. 24, 301–312, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Biggs J.B. and Collis K.F., Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press 1982.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Gentner, D and Stevens, A. L., Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New Jersey, U.S.A. 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Norman, D.A., Some Observations on Mental Models. In Mental Models. ( Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. Eds.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. New Jersey. U.S.A. 1983.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Wason, P. C. and Johnson-Laird, P. N., in Analogical Processes in Learning (Rummelhardt, D.E. and Norman, D. A. Eds.). CHIP 97, Centre for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego, USA. 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Hekmatpour S and Ince D.C., A Review of Software Prototyping. Oxford Surveys in Information Technology. 1987 ( To Appear).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Monk A., A Procedure for Identifying Unpredictability, Unnecessary Complexity, Inconsistency and Effects Which are Hard to Reverse. Proceedings CHI. York. 1987. ( To Appear).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Good M. D., Whiteside J. A,. Wixon D. R., and Jones S. J., Building a User-derived Interface. Comms. of the ACM, 27, 1032–1043, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Thimbleby H., User Interface Design: Generative Engineering Principles. In Fundamentals of Human-computer Interaction. (A. Monk. Ed.). Academic Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Dix A. J., Harrison M. D., Runciman C. and Thimbleby H. W., Two Working Papers on Formalizing Interactive System Design. University of York. Report YCS. 75. 1985.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Reisner, P., Formal Grammar and Human Factors Design of an Interactive Graphics System. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 7, No. 2, March, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Payne S.J., Task-action Grammars. In Human-Computer Interaction, Interact’84. (B Shackel (Ed.). North-Holland 527–532, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Preece J., Davies G., Ince D., Woodman M. Specifying the User Interface. CDFM Technical Report 86/6. Computing Dept, Open University Milton Keynes. 1986Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Preece
    • 1
  • G. Davies
    • 1
  • M. Woodman
    • 1
  • D. C. Ince
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Department, Faculty of MathsOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations