1 clihc 2009, november 9-11,2009. mérida, yucatán, mexico. a theoretical survey of user interface...

1 CLIHC 2009, November 9-11,2009. Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.

A Theoretical Survey of User Interface Description Languages:

Preliminary Results

Josefina Guerrero García1, Juan M. González Calleros1 ,Jean Vanderdonckt1, & Jaime Muñoz Arteaga2

1Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)Louvain School of Management (LSM)

2 Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

2 November 9-11, 2009 - Mérida, Mexico CLIHC’09

Outline

1. Introduction2. Some User Interface Description

Languages3. A Review of Xml-Compliant User Interface

Description Languages4. User Interface Description Languages

Comparison5. Conclusion


Introduction

• A User Interface Description Language (UIDL) describes various aspects of a user interface under development.

• It involves defining a syntax and semantics.

• A comparative review is produced in order to analyze how they support the various stages of user interface development life cycle.


Some UIDLs

• XISL – eXtensible Interaction Scenario Language.• a common language supporting Multimodal

interaction that is characterized by three main features:• Control dialog flow/transition: from VoiceXML• Synchronize input/output modalities: from

SMIL• Modality-extensibility: ensured by XISL


Some UIDLs

• XMMVR – eXtensible markup language for MultiModal interaction with Virtual Reality worlds.


Some UIDLs

• W3C Recommendations• DIAL – Device

Independent Authoring Language.

• EMMA – Extensible Multi Modal Annotation markup language.

• XForms.


Some UIDLs

• MXML (Adobe) used to describe UI layout and behaviors.

• Open Laszlo (Laszlo) for rich internet applications.

• Sisl (Lucent Technologies) is a service logic that is shared across many different UIs, including speech-based natural language interface.

• XAML (Microsoft) for declarative application programming for the Windows Presentation Foundation.

• XUL (Mozilla) to build feature-rich cross platform applications that can run connected or disconnected from the Internet


UIDLs


Criteria

• Some problems exist with the previous languages:

• Specificity

• Accessibility

• Relatedness

• Standard


Protocol

• To identify shortcomings on existing work a series of comparative analysis were conducted using the three axes proposed by [Beaudouin-Lafon 2000]:

– Descriptive part. A common ground were defined to describe every piece of work.

– Comparative part. A set of criteria were defined to compare the different works.

– Generative part. New work emerge from the comparative analysis.

UIDL Comparison – © UCL, 2008

Cameleon Reference Framework (CRF)

Environment T

Final userInterface T

Concrete userInterface T

Task and Domain T

Abstract userInterface T

T=Target context of use

Concrete userInterface S

Final userInterface S

Task and Domain S

Abstract userInterface S

S=Source context of use

Reification

Abstraction

Reflexion

Translation

http://www.plasticity.org

Unsupportedmodel

Supportedmodel

User S Platform S Environment S Platform TUser T


Cameleon-based UIDL Layered Profile

Abstract User Interface(PSM)

Concrete User Interface(PIM)

Final User Interface

Task & domain(CIM)

User, platform,environment

Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s


PlasticML Profile




Task & domain(CIM)


Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s

page, output, form,field, value(XForms)

HTML, WML 2.0, VoiceXML

Cod

e gé

néra

tion


TeresaML Profile




Task & domain(CIM)


Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s

Markup: Digital TV, VoiceXML, XHTML/SVG, X+VProgramming: C#

Cod

e ge

nera

tion

Presentation = connections (AND/OR) + composition of interactors Composition = grouping, ordering, relation, hierarchyInteractor = output or interaction (selection, edit, control), …

Task: CTT notationObject description: name, class, type, cardinality,…


IDEAL Profile




Task & domain(CIM)


Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s

Markup: XForms

Cod

e ge

nera

tion

(XForms): AIC Facets: Output, input, trigger, submit, range, select, select1 (item, value, Itemset, copy), choice, secretupload (filename, mediatype), alert, hint, help, labelAction Events: message (output), send, rebuild, dispatch, revalidate, setfocus, load, refresh, recalculate, setvalue, reset, toggle, insert, delete, setIndexRelations: group, switch (case), repeat, bind

(XForms): textArea,


XForms Profile




Task & domain(CIM)


Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s

Markup: XForms

Cod

e ge

nera

tion

AIC Facets: Output, input, trigger, submit, range, select, select1 (item, value, Itemset, copy), choice, secretupload (filename, mediatype), alert, hint, help, labelAction Events: message (output), send, rebuild, dispatch, revalidate, setfocus, load, refresh, recalculate, setvalue, reset, toggle, insert, delete, setIndexRelations: group, switch (case), repeat, bind

(XForms): textArea,


UsiXML Profile




Task & domain(CIM)


Tra

nsfo

rma

tion

s

Markup: Flash, VRML, WML, XHTML, X+VProgramming: C++, Java, Java3D

Mod

el to

Cod

e ge

nera

tion

(M2C

)G

ener

ativ

e pr

ogra

mm

ing,

Tem

plat

e ba

sed

appr

oach

AUI = hierarchy of abstract containers (ACs) and Abs. Indiv.Comp. (AICs) and relationsAIC = faceted computing: input, output, control, navigationActiontypes: start/go, stop/exit, select, create, delete, modify, move, duplicate, toggle, view, monitor, conveyRelations = structural, temporal

CUI = hierarchy of concrete interaction objects (CIOs) + behaviourCIO = graphical / auditory / 3D / hapgetGraphical CIO = containers (window, dialog box,…) or indiv. (check box)Auditory CIO = form, group, field, value (VoiceXML)Behaviour = set of ECA rules (events, conditions, actions)Hapget = 3D CIO augmented with haptic parameters

Mod

el to

Mod

el tr

ansf

orm

atio

nT

rans

form

atio

n =

Gra

ph g

ram

mar

Map

ping

, tr

ansf

orm

atio

n m

odel

Task = extended CTT, based on Markopoulos LOTOS desc.Domain = UML class diagram + extensions in a profile

User population = hierarchy of user stereotypes with param.Platform = subset of CC/PP (UAProf)Environment = physical, psychological, organisat. properties

General features of UIDLs


Properties Comparison of UIDLs


Conclusion

• Six years from now, a first review of UIDLs was conducted. – some works have continue, – there were works with not reported update since then– new UIDLs that have been reported in the literature and are

commercially available

• Over the reviewed languages – software vendors UIDLs – Open UIDLs– Support for single and multiplatform– Some of them are simple (as WSXL or SunML) need a few tags

while others (as UsiXML) have a significant amount– some of them are the result of a research project– some other born in industry


Conclusion

• The goal of this work is aimed to– Help authors to decide what UIDL to use

for their projects.– Understand and compare components of

different UIDLs in a systematic way –their strengths, limitations, and appropriateness for use.

– Reduce the time to select a UIDL – Assist UI designers in choosing a language

suited to their purposes.


Conclusion

• Follow us in– The W3C Incubator Group on Model-Based

User Interfaces: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/model-based-ui/

– The NEXOF initiative on application models: http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Interactive_Application_Models



Thank you very much for your attention

For more information and downloading,http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/bchi

http://www.usixml.orgUser Interface eXtensible Markup Language

http://www.uaa.mx

http://itea.defimedia.be/usixml-france ITEA2 Call 3 project (2008026)

1 clihc 2009, november 9-11,2009. mérida, yucatán, mexico. a theoretical survey of user interface...

Documents

natural language interface

common language

multimodal interaction

rich internet applications

open laszlo laszlo

various aspects

comparative review

jean vanderdonckt1