Resilience of Interaction Techniques to Interrupts: A Formal Model-Based Approach

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
  • Giorgio P. Faconti
  • Mieke Massink
  • Philippe A. Palanque
  • Marco Winckler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5726)


In many modern working environments interruptions are commonplace as users must temporarily suspend a task to complete an unexpected intervening activity. As users are faced with more and more sources of information competing for their attention, it is becoming increasingly important to understand how interruptions affect their abilities to complete tasks. This paper introduces a new perspective for research in this field by employing analytical, model-based techniques that are informed by well-established cognitive theories and empirical data available in the literature. We propose stochastic modelling and model checking to predict measures of the disruptive effects of interruptions to two well-known interaction techniques: Drag ’n Drop and Speak ’n Drop. The approach also provides a way to compare the resilience of different interaction techniques to the presence of external interruptions that users need to handle. The obtained results are in a form that allows validation with results obtained by empirical studies involving real users.


  1. 1.
    Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., Carlis, J.V.: Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface. In: Proceedings SMC 2000, pp. 757–762. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnard, P.J.: Interacting Cognitive Subsystems: A Psycholinguistic Approach to Short-term Memory. In: Ellis, A. (ed.) Progress in the Psychology of Language, ch. 6, vol. 2, pp. 197–258. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ter Beek, M.H., Faconti, G.P., Massink, M., Palanque, P.A., Winckler, M.: Resilience of Interaction Techniques to Interrupts: A Formal Model-based Approach—FULL VERSION. Technical Report, 2009-TR-001, ISTI–CNR (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinksma, E., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P. (eds.): EEF School 2000 and FMPA 2000. LNCS, vol. 2090. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cades, D.M., Trafton, J.G., Boehm-Davis, D.A., Monk, C.A.: Does the difficulty of an interruption affect our ability to resume? In: Proceedings HFES 2007, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 234–238 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duke, D.J., Barnard, P.J., Duce, D.A., May, J.: Syndetic modelling. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 13(4), 337–393 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faconti, G.P., Duke, D.J.: Device models. In: Proceedings DSV-IS 1996, pp. 73–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faconti, G., Massink, M.: Analysis of pointing tasks on a white board. In: Doherty, G., Blandford, A. (eds.) DSVIS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4323, pp. 185–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, I.E.: Theories of Visual Percept. Psychology Press (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hillston, J.: A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N. (eds.): Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jambon, F.: Formal modelling of task interruptions. In: Proceedings CHI 1996, pp. 45–46. ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: Probabilistic symbolic model checking with PRISM: A hybrid approach. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 52–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacKenzie, I.S.: Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 7(1), 91–139 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCrickard, D.S., Chewar, C.M.: Attuning notification design to user goals and attention costs. Communications of the ACM 46(3), 67–72 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDaniel, M.A., Einstein, G.O., Graham, T., Rall, E.: Delaying execution of intentions: overcoming the costs of interruptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 18(5), 533–547 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Conaill, B., Frohlich, D.: Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions. In: Proceedings CHI 1995, pp. 262–263. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palanque, P.A., Bastide, R.: Petri net based Design of User-driven Interfaces Using the Interactive Cooperative Objects Formalism. In: Proceedings DSV-IS 1994, pp. 383–400. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palanque, P.A., Bernhaupt, R., Navarre, D., Ould, M., Winckler, M.: Supporting usability evaluation of multimodal man-machine interfaces for space ground segment applications using Petri-net based formal specification. In: Proceedings SpaceOps 2006, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paternò, F., Mancini, C., Meniconi, S.: ConcurTaskTrees: A Diagrammatic Notation for Specifying Task Models. In: Proceedings INTERACT 1997, pp. 362–369. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinheiro da Silva, P.: User interface declarative models and development environments: A survey. In: Palanque, P., Paternó, F. (eds.) DSV-IS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1946, pp. 207–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trafton, J.G., Monk, C.A.: Task Interruptions. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 3, 111–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    West, R.L., Nagy, G.: Using GOMS for Modeling Routine Tasks Within Complex Sociotechnical Systems: Connecting Macrocognitive Models to Microcognition. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 1(2), 186–211 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zeigarnik, B.: Das behalten erledigter und unerledigter handlungen. Psychologische Forschung 9, 1–85 (1927)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
    • 1
  • Giorgio P. Faconti
    • 1
  • Mieke Massink
    • 1
  • Philippe A. Palanque
    • 2
  • Marco Winckler
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione ‘A. Faedo’ (ISTI)PisaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Research in Informatics of Toulouse (IRIT)University Paul SabatierToulouse cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations