1 / 30

Dialog modelling with interactors and UML Statecharts – A hybrid approach

Dialog modelling with interactors and UML Statecharts – A hybrid approach. Hallvard Trætteberg hal@idi.ntnu.no, www.idi.ntnu.no/~hal Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences (IDI) Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim. Structure of presentation.

feivel
Download Presentation

Dialog modelling with interactors and UML Statecharts – A hybrid approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dialog modelling withinteractors and UML Statecharts – A hybrid approach Hallvard Trætteberg hal@idi.ntnu.no, www.idi.ntnu.no/~hal Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences (IDI) Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim

  2. Structure of presentation • The problem we want to solve • capture abstract features of design • Features of our solution - DiaMODL • dataflow, behaviour • integration with UML • Examples of usage • Current state and future work • Conclusion Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  3. formality perspective granularity Classification ofdesign representations • From problem to solution (perspective) • From high to low level (granularity) • Level of formality ourtarget • Representation must be tailored to the needs of the design process and its participants Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  4. Scenario 1 – tradition engineering • Build task model • Annotated with information usage • contextual information used for decision making • data that is operated on • Identify dialog structures that support tasks • Map AIOs to CIOs • rules and heuristics • device characteristics Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  5. Scenario 2 – the designer approach • Sketch or prototype with the user • Document information flow and behavior • express what a concrete design does not • complement, not replace concrete description • Look for alternative designs for abstract • appreciate that concrete prototypesare not always about concrete design • systematically search for design alternatives Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  6. Example:HybridGUI/modellingtool Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  7. DiaMODL – key features • Abstract model of interaction • abstract specification of functional dialog elements • visual, compositional and scalable notation • platform- and device-independent • formal ”enough”, executable but incomplete • Covers diverse interaction styles • forms and web-pages • direct manipulation • Hybrid language • based on Pisa interactors and UML Statecharts • integrated with domain modelling language, e.g. UML Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  8. Generic interaction(Pisa black box) • Notation for generic inputand output components • Dataflow-oriented • Interactor mediates information in two directions Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  9. Scalable notation • Specification of functionality • output and inputof integers • Description of construction • composition of sub-interactors • string input combined withparsing and unparsing • Same abstract description,many alternativeconcrete interaction objects Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  10. Use of UML • Data • need for representing configurations of concrete objects (placeholders for values, i.e. variables) • collaboration diagram elements capture this • elements and sets are mapped toclasses and (multi-)objects • Behavior • Statecharts was already used • scale better than Activity charts Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  11. More complex interaction objects • Functionality defined in terms of configuration of domain objects • Utilise power ofdomain modellinglanguage • Output: Set • Input: Subset • UML is not ideal forexpressing mathematicalrelations Alternative implementation Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  12. ... and their composition • Interactor foreach set • Two buttons andadd and removefunctions Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  13. Generic tree interactor Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  14. Java Beans • Properties aremapped togates orresources Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  15. javax.swing.JList Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  16. javax.swing.JTree Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  17. Configuration of larger elements... hierarchy message list single message Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  18. ... and their composition ... • Selection 2 • Output:Set of related Messages • Input: Message instance • Selection 1 • Output:Mail Node hierarchy • Input: Mailbox • Message • Output: Message instance Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  19. ... and detailed specification in terms of domain model • Selection 1 • Output:Mail Folderhierarchy • Input: Mailbox • Selection 2 • Output:Set av related Messages • Input: Message-element • Message • Output: Message-element • Stretches UML’s notation Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  20. Activation and sequencing Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  21. State-oriented CIOs • Direct manipulation • Web page navigation • Mode selection in toolbars • Tab folders Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  22. Genericinteractors • Identify reusablepatterns • Generalizeinteractorcomposition Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  23. ...generic interactors • Instantiate generic interactorby binding parameters Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  24. ...customize generic interactors • Provide interactor forsetting parameter Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  25. Patterns • Problem description =interactor specification • Solution =interactor composition Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  26. Goal:HybridGUI/modellingtool Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  27. Open source Java implementation • Data model • extension of UML’s meta-model (Rose & Unisys tool) • use NetBeans MDR forJMI code generation, storage and XML-handling • Behavior • Statechart/interactor machinery • Editor • based on JGraph/Graphpad component/application(ArgoUML was discarded) Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  28. Extension of UML’s meta model Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  29. Future work • Validation in industry • real interest expressed, but not really tried out • Hybrid GUI-builder and modelling tool • mixed-mode GUI-building and dialog modelling • bottom-up user-centered prototyping process • Distributed user interface • interactor model may be split into parts anddeployed across interconnected devices • ad-hoc interactor connections usingBluetooth-style networking technology • XML-based (instant) messaging Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

  30. Conclusion • DiaMODL • language for specifying and documenting dialog design • visual and scalable notation partly based on UML • Strengths • platform/device independent • covers several interaction styles • Weaknesses • executable, but incomplete • no tool support (besides Visio template) • too little industry validation Hallvard Trætteberg, DSVIS-2003

More Related