Can GUI Implementation Markup Languages Be Used for Modelling?

  • Carlos Eduardo Silva
  • José Creissac Campos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7623)

Abstract

The current diversity of available devices and form factors increases the need for model-based techniques to support adapting applications from one device to another. Most work on user interface modelling is built around declarative markup languages. Markup languages play a relevant role, not only in the modelling of user interfaces, but also in their implementation. However, the languages used by each community (modellers/developers) have, to a great extent evolved separately. This means that the step from concrete model to final interface becomes needlessly complicated, requiring either compilers or interpreters to bridge this gap. In this paper we compare a modelling language (UsiXML) with several markup implementation languages. We analyse if it is feasible to use the implementation languages as modelling languages.

Keywords

User Interfaces Modelling Markup languages 

References

  1. 1.
    Guerrero-Garcia, J., Gonzalez-Calleros, J.M., Vanderdonckt, J., Munoz-Arteaga, J.: A theoretical survey of user interface description languages: Preliminary results. In: Proc. of the 2009 Latin American Web Congress, LA-WEB 2009, pp. 36–43. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaer, O., Jacob, R.J.K., Green, M., Luyten, K. (eds.): ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Special issue on UIDL for next-generation user interfaces 16(4) (November 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J.: A Unifying Reference Framework for Multi-target User Interfaces. Interacting with Computers 15, 289–308 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Ladry, J.F., Barboni, E.: ICOs: A model-based user interface description technique dedicated to interactive systems addressing usability, reliability and scalability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 16(4), 18:1–18:56 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaer, O., Jacob, R.J.: A specification paradigm for the design and implementation of tangible user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 16(4), 20:1–20:39 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wingrave, C.A., Laviola Jr., J.J., Bowman, D.A.: A natural, tiered and executable uidl for 3d user interfaces based on concept-oriented design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 16(4), 21:1–21:36 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helms, J., Schaefer, R., Luyten, K., Vermeulen, J., Abrams, M., Coyette, A., Vanderdonckt, J.: Human-Centered Engineering of Interactive Systems With the User Interface Markup Language. In: Seffah, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Desmarais, M. (eds.) Human-Centered Software Engineering. Human-Computer Interaction Series, pp. 139–171. Springer, London (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puerta, A., Eisenstein, J.: XIML: a common representation for interaction data. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent user Interfaces, pp. 214–215 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paternò, F., Santoro, C., Spano, L.D.: MARIA: A universal, declarative, multiple abstraction-level language for service-oriented applications in ubiquitous environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 16(4), 1–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Limbourg, Q., Vanderdonckt, J., Michotte, B., Bouillon, L., López-Jaquero, V.: USIXML: A Language Supporting Multi-path Development of User Interfaces. In: Feige, U., Roth, J. (eds.) DSV-IS-EHCI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3425, pp. 200–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gram, C., Cockton, G. (eds.): Design Principles for Interactive Software. Chapman & Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berghe, Y.V.: Etude et implémentation d’un générateur d’interfaces vectorielles à partir d’un langage de description d’interfaces utilisateur. Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain (2004) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campos, J.C., Mendes, S.A.: FlexiXML - A portable user interface rendering engine for UsiXML. In: User Interface Extensible Markup Language - UsiXML 2011, pp. 158–168. Thales Research and Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denis, V.: Un pas vers le poste de travail unique: QTKiXML, un interpréteur d’interface utilisateur à partir de sa description. Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goffette, Y., Louvigny, H.: Development of multimodal user interfaces by interpretation and by compiled components: a comparative analysis between InterpiXML and OpenInterface. Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 131–174 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Eduardo Silva
    • 1
  • José Creissac Campos
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade do Minho & HASLab, INESC TECBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations