Table Of ContentLecture Notes in Computer Science 5136
CommencedPublicationin1973
FoundingandFormerSeriesEditors:
GerhardGoos,JurisHartmanis,andJanvanLeeuwen
EditorialBoard
DavidHutchison
LancasterUniversity,UK
TakeoKanade
CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA,USA
JosefKittler
UniversityofSurrey,Guildford,UK
JonM.Kleinberg
CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY,USA
AlfredKobsa
UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,CA,USA
FriedemannMattern
ETHZurich,Switzerland
JohnC.Mitchell
StanfordUniversity,CA,USA
MoniNaor
WeizmannInstituteofScience,Rehovot,Israel
OscarNierstrasz
UniversityofBern,Switzerland
C.PanduRangan
IndianInstituteofTechnology,Madras,India
BernhardSteffen
UniversityofDortmund,Germany
MadhuSudan
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,MA,USA
DemetriTerzopoulos
UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA,USA
DougTygar
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA
GerhardWeikum
Max-PlanckInstituteofComputerScience,Saarbruecken,Germany
T.C. Nicholas Graham Philippe Palanque (Eds.)
Interactive Systems
Design, Specification,
and Verification
15th International Workshop, DSV-IS 2008
Kingston, Canada, July 16-18, 2008
Proceedings
1 3
VolumeEditors
T.C.NicholasGraham
SchoolofComputing
Queen’sUniversity
Kingston,Ontario,Canada
E-mail:[email protected]
PhilippePalanque
IRIT
UniversityPaulSabatier(Toulouse3)
Toulouse,France
E-mail:[email protected]
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2008930133
CRSubjectClassification(1998):H.5.2,H.5,I.3,D.2,F.3
LNCSSublibrary:SL2–ProgrammingandSoftwareEngineering
ISSN 0302-9743
ISBN-10 3-540-70568-6SpringerBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
ISBN-13 978-3-540-70568-0SpringerBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,
initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsareliable
toprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
SpringerisapartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
springer.com
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2008
PrintedinGermany
Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyScientificPublishingServices,Chennai,India
Printedonacid-freepaper SPIN:12436422 06/3180 543210
Preface
The modern world has made available a wealth of new possibilities for interacting
with computers, through advanced Web applications, while on the go with handheld
smart telephones or using electronic tabletops or wall-sized displays. Developers of
modern interactive systems face great problems: how to design applications which will
work well with newly available technologies, and how to efficiently and correctly
implement such designs. Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems
2008 was the 15th of a series of annual workshops devoted to helping designers and
implementers of interactive systems unleash the power of modern interaction devices
and techniques.
DSV-IS 2008 was held at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, during July
16–18, 2008. This book collects the best papers submitted to the workshop. There were
17 full papers, 10 late-breaking and experience report papers, and two demonstrations.
Keynote presentations were provided by Judy Brown of Carleton University and Randy
Ellis of Queen’s University.
The first day of the workshop addressed the problems of user interface evaluation
and specification, with particular emphasis on the use of task models to provide high-
level approaches for capturing the intended functionality of a user interface. Day two
continued this theme, examining techniques for modeling user interfaces, particularly
for mobile and ubiquitous applications. Presenters also discussed advanced implemen-
tation techniques for interactive systems. Finally, day three considered how to archi-
tect interactive systems, and returned to the themes of evaluation and specification.
The workshop was hosted by IFIP Working Group 2.7/13.4 on User Interface En-
gineering. We thank the 30 members of our international Program Committee for their
hard work in the paper selection process. We also gratefully acknowledge Precision
Conference for their generous donation of the PCS reviewing system.
We hope that you enjoy this record of the DSV-IS 2008 workshop, and find it fruit-
ful for your work and research.
July 2008 T.C. Nicholas Graham
Philippe Palanque
Organization
Conference Chairs
T.C. Nicholas Graham, Queen's University, Canada
Philippe Palanque, IHCS-IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, France
Program Committee
Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, PUC-Rio, Brazil
Rémi Bastide, IRIT - C.U. Jean-François Champollion, France
Regina Bernhaupt, ICT&S, University of Salzburg, Austria
Ann Blandford, UCL, UK
Judith Brown, Carleton University, Canada
Gaelle Calvary, University of Grenoble, France
José Creissac Campos, University of Minho, Portugal
Stéphane Chatty, ENAC, France
Prasun Dewan, University of North Carolina, USA
Anke Dittmar, University of Rostock, Germany
Alan Dix, Lancaster University, UK
Gavin Doherty, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Peter Forbrig, University of Rostock, Germany
Philip Gray, University of Glasgow, UK
Morten Borup Harning, Priway, Denmark
Michael Harrison, University of Newcastle, UK
Chris Johnson, University of Glasgow, UK
Joaquim A Jorge, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
Kris Luyten, Expertise Centre for Digital Media, Hasselt University, Belgium
Mieke Massink, CNR, Pisa, Italy
Francisco Montero, UCLM, Spain
Laurence Nigay, University of Grenoble, France
Nuno Nunes, University of Madeira, Portugal
Fabio Paterno, ISTI-CNR, Pisa, Italy
Greg Phillips, Royal Military College, Canada
Kevin Scheider, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Harold Thimbleby, University of Swansea, Wales
Claus Unger, University of Hagen, Germany
Jean Vanderdonckt, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Marco Winckler, IHCS-IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, France
Table of Contents
EMU in the Car: Evaluating Multimodal Usability of a Satellite
Navigation System ............................................... 1
Ann Blandford, Paul Curzon, Joanne Hyde, and George Papatzanis
ComparingMixed Interactive Systems for Navigating3D Environments
in Museums ..................................................... 15
Emmanuel Dubois, C´edric Bach, and Philippe Truillet
An Attentive Groupware Device to Mitigate Information Overload ..... 29
Antonio Ferreira and Pedro Antunes
Multi-fidelity User Interface Specifications........................... 43
Thomas Memmel, Jean Vanderdonckt, and Harald Reiterer
HOPS: A PrototypicalSpecification Tool for Interactive Systems....... 58
Anke Dittmar, Toralf Hu¨bner, and Peter Forbrig
Systematic Analysis of Control Panel Interfaces Using Formal Tools .... 72
J. Creissac Campos and M.D. Harrison
Investigating System Navigation Ergonomics through Model
Verification ..................................................... 86
Alexandre Scaico, Maria de F.Q. Vieira,
Markson R.F. de Sousa, and Charles Santoni
Tool Support for Representing Task Models, Dialog Models and
User-Interface Specifications....................................... 92
D. Reichart, A. Dittmar, P. Forbrig, and M. Wurdel
Towards a Library of Workflow User Interface Patterns ............... 96
Josefina Guerrero Garc´ıa, Jean Vanderdonckt,
Juan Manuel Gonza´lez Calleros, and Marco Winckler
Specification and Verification of Multi-agent Systems Interaction
Protocols Using a Combination of AUML and Event B ............... 102
Leila Jemni Ben Ayed and Fatma Siala
Pattern Languages as Tool for Discount Usability Engineering ......... 108
Elbert-Jan Hennipman, Evert-Jan Oppelaar, and Gerrit van der Veer
Cascading Dialog Modeling with UsiXML........................... 121
Marco Winckler, Jean Vanderdonckt, Adrian Stanciulescu, and
Francisco Trindade
VIII Table of Contents
Designing Graphical Elements for Cognitively Demanding Activities:
An Account on Fine-Tuning for Colors.............................. 136
Gilles Tabart, St´ephane Conversy, Jean-Luc Vinot, and
Sylvie Ath`enes
Lightweight Coding of Structurally Varying Dialogs .................. 149
Michael Dunlavey
ReWiRe: Designing Reactive Systems for Pervasive Environments...... 155
Geert Vanderhulst, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx
TowardMulti-disciplinary Model-Based(Re)Design ofSustainable User
Interfaces ....................................................... 161
Jan Van den Bergh, Mieke Haesen, Kris Luyten,
Sofie Notelaers, and Karin Coninx
A Model-Based Approach to Supporting Configuration in Ubiquitous
Systems ........................................................ 167
Tony McBryan and Phil Gray
Exploiting Web Services and Model-Based User Interfaces for
Multi-device Access to Home Applications .......................... 181
Giulio Mori, Fabio Paterno`, and Lucio Davide Spano
Resources for Situated Actions..................................... 194
Gavin Doherty, Jose Campos, and Michael Harrison
An Architecture and a Formal Description Technique for the Design
and Implementation of Reconfigurable User Interfaces ................ 208
David Navarre, Philippe Palanque, Jean-Franc¸ois Ladry, and
Sandra Basnyat
COMET(s), a Software Architecture Style and an Interactors Toolkit
for Plastic User Interfaces......................................... 225
Alexandre Demeure, Ga¨elle Calvary, and Karin Coninx
Executable Models for Human-Computer Interaction ................. 238
Marco Blumendorf, Grzegorz Lehmann, Sebastian Feuerstack, and
Sahin Albayrak
A Middleware for Seamless Use of Multiple Displays.................. 252
Satoshi Sakurai, Yuichi Itoh, Yoshifumi Kitamura,
Miguel A. Nacenta, Tokuo Yamaguchi, Sriram Subramanian, and
Fumio Kishino
Graphic Rendering Considered as a Compilation Chain ............... 267
Benjamin Tissoires and St´ephane Conversy
Table of Contents IX
Towards Specifying Multimodal Collaborative User Interfaces: A
Comparison of Collaboration Notations ............................. 281
Fr´ed´eric Jourde, Yann Laurillau, Alberto Moran, and Laurence Nigay
Towards Characterizing Visualizations.............................. 287
Christophe Hurter and St´ephane Conversy
Towards Usability Evaluation for Smart Appliance Ensembles ......... 294
Gregor Buchholz and Stefan Propp
Task Model Refinement with Meta Operators........................ 300
Maik Wurdel, Daniel Sinnig, and Peter Forbrig
Utilizing Dynamic Executable Models for User Interface
Development .................................................... 306
Grzegorz Lehmann, Marco Blumendorf, Sebastian Feuerstack, and
Sahin Albayrak
Author Index.................................................. 311
EMU in the Car: Evaluating Multimodal Usability of a
Satellite Navigation System
Ann Blandford1, Paul Curzon2, Joanne Hyde3, and George Papatzanis2
1 UCL Interaction Centre, University College London, Remax House, 31-32 Alfred Place
London WC1E 7DP, U.K
[email protected]
http://www.uclic.ucl.ac.uk/annb/
2 Queen Mary, University of London, U.K
3 formerly at Middlesex University U.K
Abstract. The design and evaluation of multimodal systems has traditionally
been a craft skill. There are some well established heuristics, guidelines and
frameworks for assessing multimodal interactions, but no established method-
ologies that focus on the design of the interaction between user and system in
context. In this paper, we present EMU, a systematic evaluation methodology
for reasoning about the usability of an interactive system in terms of the modali-
ties of interaction. We illustrate its application using an example of in-car navi-
gation. EMU fills a niche in the repertoire of analytical evaluation approaches
by focusing on the quality of interaction in terms of the modalities of interac-
tion, how modalities are integrated, and where there may be interaction break-
downs due to modality clashes, synchronisation difficulties or distractions.
Keywords: usability evaluation, multimodal systems, in-car navigation sys-
tems, satellite navigation systems.
1 Introduction
There is a substantial literature on the design and use of multimodal systems, most of
which takes either a system or a user perspective. Taking a system perspective, issues
of concern include how to select output modalities to communicate most effectively
(e.g. [9]) and how to integrate user input expressed through multiple modalities to
correctly interpret the user’s meaning (e.g. [15]). Conversely, much work from a user
perspective is concerned with how users perceive and work with system output in
different modalities (e.g. [8]) or how users select modalities of communication (e.g.
[14]). Little work has taken an integrative approach, considering both user and system
perspectives in parallel. The work reported here takes such an approach, developing a
prototype methodology for reasoning about the design of multimodal interactive sys-
tems to accommodate both input and output within the interaction. As an integrative
approach, it does not consider the fine-grained details of either system implementa-
tion or user cognition, but focuses more broadly on how the two interact.
T.C.N. Graham and P. Palanque (Eds.): DSVIS 2008, LNCS 5136, pp. 1–14, 2008.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008
2 A. Blandford et al.
The method, Evaluating Multimodal Usability (EMU) was initially developed and
tested using as the main case study a robotic arm interface [10]. The approach pre-
sented and illustrated here is a refinement of the method, as described below.
2 Background: Multimodal Interaction
Multimodal systems are widely considered to be ones that integrate multiple modes of
input or output, typically using non-standard interaction devices. The standard con-
figuration of keyboard and mouse for input and graphics, text and audio for output is
rarely described as “multimodal”, though for our purposes it would class as such.
Many definitions of a “modality” effectively consider a data stream from a particular
source. For example Lin and Imamiya [13] discuss assessing user experience by
measuring various user attributes – eye gaze, pupil size, hand movements, verbal
reports – and refer to each of these inputs as a modality. Similarly, Sun et al [15]
discuss data fusion across speech and gesture modalities, and Oviatt et al [14] focus
on how people select alternative modalities (i.e. input devices) for interacting with a
computer system. Considering both user input and computer system output, Coutaz et
al [5] consider the combinations of modalities in terms of Complementarity, Assign-
ment, Redundancy and Equivalence. Here, ‘assignment’ means that information has
to be communicated through a particular modality and ‘equivalence’ means that the
same information can be communicated equally effectively through alternative mo-
dalities. Complementarity and redundancy refer to how information is communicated
(using different modalities in complementary ways, or presenting equivalent informa-
tion through multiple modalities).
From a user perspective, much work on modalities has focused on how people in-
tegrate information received through different senses. Wickens and Hollands [17]
present a multiple resource theory that considers cognitive capabilities and limitations
in terms of perceptual channels (vision, hearing, touch, etc.), information form (of
which the two most important for our purposes are lexical and symbolic) and stages
of processing. They highlight limitations on sensory input (that multiple streams of
information cannot be easily received through the same channel, such as eyes or ears,
simultaneously) and on input, processing and action (that competing information in
the same code, verbal or spatial, cannot be easily processed simultaneously). Other
approaches that take a user focus include Barnard et al’s work on Interacting Cogni-
tive Subsystems [7], which considers the transformation and integration of sensory
inputs through central processing to generate action, and Kieras et al’s [12] work on
Executive Process – Interaction Control (EPIC), which models human information
processing in complex, multimodal tasks.
Since our concern is with assessing the usability of interactive systems, the capa-
bilities and constraints on human processing, as well as those on system processing,
have to be accommodated within any definition of a modality. Drawing on the in-
sights from earlier work on modalities, we propose a definition: that a modality is a
temporally based instance of information perceived by a particular sensory channel.
This definition comprises three key elements, time, form and channel, which need
some explanation.
