A Coherent Specification Method For the User Interface Of Documentation Systems

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Editing Metaphor MIlton 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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