Lecture 13: Continuing Work in Model-Based User Interfaces

1. Lecture 13:Continuing Work in Model-Based User Interfaces Brad Myers Slides originally authored by Jeffrey Nichols, 2004 05-830: Advanced User Interface Software

2. Last time… • Model-based User Interfaces • Automatic generation of the user interface so the programmer won’t do a bad job. • Dialog boxes are relatively easy to generate • The full application interface is hard to generate • Abstract descriptions of the interface can be longer and harder to generate than implementing the interface itself. • Interface builders turned out to be easier…

3. Research continued… • Multiple models were integrated • Relational models were developed to explicitly link other kinds of models • Data models became more detailed • Task models became very important

4. Research continued… Fragmented into two different approaches • Software engineering approach (early 90’s-) • Very detailed models to improve overall design process • Intelligent design assistants instead of automatic generation • Significant use of task models • Ubiquitous computing approach (2000-) • Tons of “invisible” processors that perform tasks for us • UIs for these processors are presented on other devices (mobile phone, PDA, speech, etc.) • Impossible to manually build user interfaces for every combination

5. What are task models, anyway? • Key part of many current HCI approaches • Description of the process a user takes to reach a goal in a specific domain • Typically have hierarchical structure • Introduced by GOMS • Number of different task modeling languages • GOMS • UAN • ConcurTaskTrees

6. Developed by Fabio Paterno et al. for the design of user interfaces Goals Graphical for easy interpretation Concurrent model for representing UI tasks Different task types Represent all tasks, including those performed by the system Used almost universally by new model-based systems ConcurTaskTrees

7. Task Building Process • Three phases • Hierarchically decompose the tasks • Identify the temporal relationships among tasks at same level • Identify what objects are manipulated and what actions can be performed on them, and assign these to the tasks as appropriate. • Temporal Relationships • T1 [] T2 - Choice • T1 ||| T2 - Interleaving • T1 |[]| T2 - Synchronization • T1 >> T2 - Enabling • T1 []>> T2 - Enabling with Information Passing • T1 [> T2 - Deactivation • T1* - Iteration • T1(n) - Finite Iteration • [T1] - Optional • T – Recursion

8. Note: First example is ambiguous Example • T1 [] T2 - Choice • T1 ||| T2 - Interleaving

9. Another Example • T1 [] T2 – Choice • T1 >> T2 - Enabling • T1 []>> T2 - Enabling with Information Passing • T1 [> T2 – Deactivation

10. Building/Editing Task Models • Tools are available • ConcurTaskTrees Environment http://giove.cnuce.cnr.it/ctte.html or Google for “ConcurTaskTrees”

11. Software Engineering Approach • Lots and lots of systems! • Commercial work • MasterMind • Angel Puerta’s work at Stanford • Mecano, Mobi-D, XIML • UIML • Cameleon Project • Teresa • USIXML • etc…

12. Software Engineering Approach • Commercial work • “Model-based design” • Example: BPMN “businessprocess modeling notation” • Business experts should beable to author models • Converted into code tosupport the process (requires people) • Keynote at ICSE’08: Herbert Hanselmann: Challenges in Automotive Software Engineering • “Model-based design (MBD) of functional behaviour has been a big help in the recent past”

13. MasterMind • Neches, et.al., IUI’93 • One of the first system to integrate multiple models together

14. Mobi-D • Angel Puerta, IUI’97 • Set of tools to support a clearly defined development cycle • Uses a series of different models • Explicit relationships that specify how the models are related to each other • Explicit interaction between end users and developers

15. Mobi-D Models • User-task Model • Describes tasks the user performs and what interaction capabilities are needed • Domain Model • Models of the entities that are manipulated in an interface and their properties • Dialog Model • Describes the human-computer conversation at a low level • Presentation Model • Specifies how the interaction objects appear in all of the different states of the interface. • Relations • Describes how each of the models relate to each other • Tasks/Domain, Dialog/Presentation, Tasks/Dialog, etc.

16. Mobi-D Process • Elicit user tasks • Start with informal description and then convert to outline (basis for task models in Mobi-D) • More formal task analysis methods could probably be used • User-task and domain modeling • Skeleton domain model is built from task outline • Developer refines model • Explicit methods for generalizing pieces of model for reuse in other interface designs • Presentation and Dialog design • Decision support tools provide recommendations from model and interface guidelines (if available) • System steps through task model and helps designer build final interface • By carrying the task model through the process, Mobi-D’s designers believe users can provide more useful feedback

17. Mobi-D Discussion • Provides assistance rather than automating design • Recommendations do not limit flexibility, but organize the design process • For usability engineers, not everyday users • Benefits come from reuse among small projects or for managing interaction data from a large project • Models can be large and appear to require significant effort to develop • Spawned a profitable company http://www.redwhale.com/ that does UI work

18. XIML eXtensible Interface Markup Language • XIML.org • Based on Mobi-D work • Supports full development lifecycle • Used by RedWhale Software to drive their interface consultant business • They have developed many tools • move interaction data to/from XIML • Leverage data in XIML to better understand various interfaces • Automate parts of the interface design process

19. Example Use for XIML Multi-platform interface development

20. Other Systems • UIML (http://www.harmonia.com/) • Originally a research project at Virginia Tech, now being developed commercially by Harmonia • Goal is platform independent language for describing UI • Early versions were not very platform independent • Recent versions using task models to automatically generate parts of the old language that were not platform independent • Teresa (http://giove.cnuce.cnr.it/teresa.html) • Transformation Environment for inteRacti • Tool for taking ConcurTaskTrees models, building an abstract interface, and then building a concrete interface on multiple platforms. • USIXML (http://www.usixml.org) • Many of the same features of XIML • Novel aspect is the use of graph structure for modeling relations (seems very complex)

21. Ubiquitous Computing Approach “Pervasive computing cannot succeed if every device must be accompanied by its own interactive software and hardware…What is needed is a universal interactive service protocol to which any compliant interactive client can connect and access any service.” -Dan Olsen (Xweb paper) The web comes close to solving this problem, but is interactively insufficient.

22. Ubiquitous Computing Approach • There are two problems here: • Infrastructure issues • How do devices communicate? • How do devices discover each other? • User Interfaces issues • Are devices described sufficiently to build a good UI? • How are interfaces generated? • How can one interface be created for controlling combinations of related devices?

23. Infrastructure Issues • Possible to investigate these issues without automatically generating UIs • Being addressed by lots of systems • Commercially • UPnP, JINI, Salutation, HAVi • Research • Speakeasy (PARC), many others… • Most systems that address the UI issues also have some infrastructure component

24. Systems addressing UI issues • XWeb • Now known as ICE – Interactive Computing Everywhere • ICrafter • A system for integrating user interfaces from multiple devices • Supple • A system for automatically generating interfaces with a focus on customization/personalization. • Personal Universal Controller • Jeff Nichol’s research…

25. XWeb • Work by Dan Olsen and group at BYU • E.g. UIST’2000, pp.191 - 200   • Premise: • Apply the web metaphor to services in general • Support higher levels of interactivity

26. XWeb Protocols • Based upon the architecture of the web • XTP Interaction Protocol • Server-side data has a tree structure • Structured Data in XML • URLs for location of objects • xweb://my.site/games/chess/3/@winner • xweb://automate.home/lights/livingroom/ • xweb://automate.home/lights/familyroom/-1

27. XWeb & XTP • CHANGE message (similar to GET in HTTP) • Sequence of editing operations to apply to a sub-tree • Set an attribute’s value • Delete an attribute • Change some child object to a new value • Insert a new child object • Move a subtree to a new location • Copy a subtree to a new location

28. Platform Independent Interfaces • Two models are specified • DataView – The attributes of the service • XView – A mapping of the attributes into high-level “interactors” • Atomic • Numeric • Time • Date • Enumeration • Text • Links • Aggregation • Group • List

29. XWeb Example DataView

30. XwebExample XView

31. XWeb Example Interface

32. Other XWeb Details • Has simple approach for adjusting to different screen sizes • Shrink portions of the interface • Add additional columns of widgets • Also capable of generating speech interfaces • Based on a tree traversal approach like Universal Speech Interfaces

33. ICrafter • Part of the Interactive Workspaces research project at Stanford • Ponnekanti, et. al. Ubicomp’2001 • Main objective: • “to allow users of interactive workspaces to flexibly interact with services” • Contribution • An intelligent infrastructure to find services, aggregate them into a single interface, and generate an interface for the aggregate service. • In practice, much of the interface generation is done by hand though automatic generation is supported.

34. ICrafter Architecture

35. How is aggregation accomplished? • High-level service interfaces (programmatic) • Data Producer • Data Consumer • The Interface Manager has pattern generators • Recognize patterns in the services used • Generate interfaces for these patterns • This means that unique functionality will not be available in the aggregate interface

36. Automatic Generation in ICrafter

37. Manual Generation in ICrafter

38. Supple • Eventual goal is to support automatic personalization of user interfaces • Treats generation of interfaces as an optimization problem • Can take into account usage patterns in generation • Krzysztof Gajos and Daniel S. Weld, “SUPPLE: Automatically Generating User Interfaces” in Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces 2004, Funchal, Portugal.

39. Modeling Users with Traces • Supple uses traces to keep a usage model • Sequences of events: • <interface element, old value, new value> • Interfaces are rendered taking the traces into account (though traces are not required) • Trails are segmented at interface close or reset

40. Generating with Optimization • Uses a branch-and-bound search to explore space of alternatives • Guaranteed to find an optimal solution

41. Device-specific measure of how appropriate a control is for manipulating a variable of a given type Cost of navigation between subsequent controls in a trace Total cost for one user trace Total cost of all traces Optimization Equation

42. Screenshots

43. Personal Universal Controller • Jeff Nichol’s PhD work • Problem: • Appliance interfaces are too complex and too idiosyncratic. • Solution: • Separate the interface from the appliance and use a device with a richer interface to control the appliance: • PDA, mobile phone, etc.

44. Approach Use mobile devices to control all appliances in the environment Specifications Control Feedback Mobile Devices Appliances Key Features Two-way communication, Abstract Descriptions, Multiple Platforms, Automatic Interface Generation

45. The PUC System Architecture APPLIANCES (Stereo, Alarm Clock, etc.) PUC DEVICES (automatic interface generation) ADAPTOR (publishes description + appliance state + controls appliance) PROTOCOL (two-way communication of specification & state) PROTOCOL (two-way communication of specification & state) device specification & state feedback COMMUNICATION (802.11, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.) COMMUNICATION (802.11, Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc.) control

46. Automatic Generation of UIs • Benefits • All interfaces consistent for a user • With conventions of the handheld • Even from multiple manufacturers • Addresses hotel alarm clock problem • Can take into account user preferences • Multiple modalities (GUI + Speech UI) • A Hard Problem • Previous automatic systems have not generated high quality interfaces

47. PUC Specification Language • XML • Full documentation for the specification language and protocol: http://www.pebbles.hcii.cmu.edu/puc/ • Contains sample specification for a stereo

48. Properties of PUC Language • State variables & commands • Each can have multiple labels • Useful when not enough room • Typed variables • Base types: Boolean, string,enumerated, integers,fixed-point, floating-point, etc. • Optional labels for values • Hierarchical Structure • Groups

49. Dependency Information • Crucial for high-quality interfaces • Expressed as <active-if> clauses • Operations: • Equals, Less-Than,Greater-Than • Combined Logically • AND, OR • Used for: • Dynamic graying out • Layout • Widget selection

50. Specifications • Have working specifications for: • Audiophase stereo • X-10 lights control • Sony CamCorder • Windows Media Player • Audio ReQuest hardware MP3 player • WinAmp Media Player • Elevator • Parts of GMC Yukon Denali SUV • Etc.