Studieplan for Jacob W Jespersen

Transcription

1 Studieplan for Jacob W Jespersen Dokument dato: 24. september årigt Ph.D. studium ved IT-Universitetet i København. Påbegyndt 1. marts 2003, forventet afslutning 1. juni 2006 (forlængelsen er grundet forventet forældreorlov undervejs) Studiets titel: Model-based User Interface Development With Strong Domain Dependence Hovedvejleder: Kasper Østerbye, ITU Medvejleder: Søren Lauesen, ITU Dette dokument indeholder (EN engelsk, DK dansk): EN: Background 2 Quality Factors 2 Integrating HCI and SE 2 Model-based User Interface Development 2 Current position 3 EN: Hypothesis 3 EN: Research approach 4 DK: Forældreorlov 4 DK: Ophold ved anden institution 4 DK: Modtaget undervisning 4 DK: /undervisningsopgaver 4 DK: Tidsplan 5 EN: References 7 København, 24. september Jacob W Jespersen Kasper Østerbye 1

2 EN: Background An estimated thirty-seven to fifty percent of the development efforts that goes into a modern IT system throughout its life cycle are related to the system s user interface. Consequently, within information system development the HCI (human-computer interaction) practices greatly influence software engineering (SE) practices and vice versa. Unfortunately, there are major gaps of communication between the HCI and SE fields, which directly affects product quality and development cost-effectiveness [Harning & Vanderdonckt, 2003]. The archetypal relationship between HCI and SE forms the background for my project. This section briefly portrays the relationship and describes in which way I expect my work may contribute to improve it. Quality Factors From an HCI perspective one can characterize a good system as effective (wrt. users tasks), easy to learn, efficient in use, and easy to remember (helps the infrequent user). In addition, users should be happy with the system (subjective satisfaction) and able to understand its operation to an extent where they can act when something unexpected happens [Lauesen, 2003]. Among system quality factors in the SE perspective Bertrand Meyer [Meyer, 2000] lists reliability, modularity, (scope of) functionality, compatibility, portability (across platforms), efficiency (in processing), ease of use, and timeliness (system delivered on time). These are what he considers external quality factors, i.e. they are the subset of factors that are important to people outside the system delivery organization. The difference between the SE and HCI perspectives is more profound than the variation in their respective quality factors indicates at first glance. In my experience, one of the large gaps in communication between SE and HCI stems from a fundamental difference in their approaches. The difference is explicated when HCI people argue that their quality factors taken together circumscribe SE quality factors, while SE people say that ease-of-use is just one of several quality factors they have to care for. The positions are not contradictory; they just highlight the observation that briefly put HCI activities (the design-oriented) favor a top-down approach while most SE activities (the construction-oriented) prefer a bottom-up manner. Integrating HCI and SE There are, of course, people who personally bridge the gap and purposely change perspectives back and forth when they work, but I will stick to the archetypes for this introduction of my project. On the whole, it seems hard for people to appreciate the HCI approach if they are most at ease with the SE perspective and vice versa. On this background, a common inclination is to look for ways to couple the HCI and SE perspectives without making one into the other. Researchers propose various means to this coupling, among them textual descriptions (e.g. task and scenario descriptions), diagramming techniques (e.g. UML with extensions [Paula et al, 2003]), conceptual models (often of domain and tasks) and development methodologies (e.g. augmented UP/RUP [Nunes, 2003]). I believe that the model-based approaches has a potential to improve further on the relationship between HCI and SE. For example, advances may come from the growing interest in the Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) within the SE field. The MDA specifically aims at addressing individual system quality factors independently during systems development [OMG, 2001], i.e. allow for separation of concerns. Model-based User Interface Development Model-based approaches to system engineering have a number of benefits. Besides the potential for separation of concerns, model transformation technology can drastically reduce the time and resources involved in producing executable code [OMG, 2003]. Within the HCI community, model-based user interface development (MB-UID) has tried to achieve these benefits when engineering the parts of a system that realize its user interface. In practice, this usually involves specifying a user interface at a higher abstraction level than 2

3 simply programming a toolkit library. In a model-based approach, a high-level specification is (more or less automatically) turned into executable code, thus the user interface developers need not deal with, relatively speaking, low-level toolkits. Szekely lists the following virtues of model-based UI development [Szekely, 1996]: Reduces development time and cost Since UI models are (more or less) automatically transformed to code, UIs are produced quicker and at a lower cost than the equivalent quality would normally require. Overcomes differences in platforms MB-UID can more easily overcome differences in UI platforms since a proper UI model can by nature morph to accommodate such differences. Provides for interface tailoring Both developers and end-users have better options for user interface tailoring if a UI model in a consistent manner captures what is in the UI. Multi-modal interfaces User interfaces with multiple input modalities (e.g. speech & gesture) usually form a single interpretation of the user s intention in a step known as fusion [Wahlster, 2003]. A UI model complements such approach. System integration If two (or more) separate systems each have a consistent UI model, a third UI model may be derived, e.g. one that supports tasks that would otherwise require the user to interact with several separate systems. Current position Despite the potential benefits of model-based user interface development, commercial developers have not generally adopted it. Most commercial user interface development is done by user interface builders, toolkits and a programming language [Szekely]. One reason may be that model-based UI development often requires developers to give up the finegrained control of appearance and behavior in return for the benefits. A further reason may be that, according to the Object Management Group (OMG), model-based approaches are generally not adopted in commercial system development [OMG, 2003]. In model-based UI development, naturally, the model is the primary component. It is often organized into three levels of abstraction: at the top level is a task and domain model specification, in the middle an abstract (sometimes called logical) UI specification and lastly a concrete UI specification. Each level addresses aspects of the resulting user interface, yet only the concrete level is close to the traditional user interface constructs (menu, icon, popup, etc.) The critical aspect of model-based UI development is the step taken to transform the specifications into executable code. Researchers have tried out various ways of doing this; some are fully automated [Balzert, 1996], others allow the developer a degree of control of the transformation step(s) and/or editing of the specification at intermediate steps [Szekely et al, 1995]. It has been argued that the benefits from automated transformation are gained at the cost of the quality of the user interface in terms of usability [Szekely, 1996]. In particular, if the design step (which is, loosely, the activity to sequence domain data representation and expected end-user input relative to a set of task descriptions) is automated, results seem to be too data-oriented and not meeting end-users expectations [Harning, 1996]. EN: Hypothesis The reported poor results given a fully automated transformation (from high-level UI model to executable code) suggest that we either use a more clever transformation mechanism or a richer UI modeling style. If the transformation engine is better informed, i.e. it knows about the target domain, then it can make design decisions that better meet end-users expectations. Similarly, if the UI modeling style increases in expressiveness, the UI model can carry more detail and thus give the developer a fine-grained control of the resulting UI, so he has a way to fulfill users expectations. One way to enrich the modeling style would be to provide for 3

4 domain-specific user interface model constructs. For example, given that a Person construct existed (at the desired level of detail), we could model a Customer as a Person with certain characteristics instead of as a specific input form with associated edit fields. Fully automated model transformations are central to realize the benefits of model-based approaches in general [OMG, 2003 ], and OMG further states that strong domain dependence is key to successfully achieving full automation. It is not clear that the same is true for modelbased UI development, but it seems to be a reasonable hypothesis to test. So, the research question is: can a strong dependence on the application domain improve results from model-based UI development? And, if yes, can the traditional virtues of modelbased UI development then be maintained? EN: Research approach My research is prototype-driven. I expect to build two working prototypes during the project, and my reflection on that experience in particular the problems encountered in the process will guide my studies of literature and the project s direction. The first prototype takes it outset in a common project within the NEXT project [Borch et al, 2003] to design and implement a program generator capable of building REA-based applications from a declarative specification. The main objective, seen from my perspective, is to study a model-based approach (the MDA) and to come close to a specific domain, namely Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. In particular, we study a certain flavor of ERP systems that are based on the REA ontology [McCarthy & Geerts, 1999]. I expect Prototype 1 to end with an experimental implementation that fulfills the requirement to produce a working user interface directly from models belonging to the domain. With the results from Prototype 1 present, I intend to design and conduct a small-scale case study of selected existing ERP systems to develop a taxonomy for such systems user interfaces. The study will show to what extent e.g. model-based approaches are used, and maybe point to observable patterns in their characteristics. As stated, results from Prototype 1 (and the case study) will influence the purpose of Prototype 2. However, my current position dictates that Prototype 2 is used to study ways to integrate data presentation (layout and visualization) in the UI models, and to expand on the notion of task support, preferably to research options for task tailoring. DK: Forældreorlov Jeg forventer at tage forældreorlov i 3-4 mdr. fra omkring juni til september I givet fald strækker mit ph.d. forløb sig ind i det 7. halvår, som det fremgår af tidsplanen. DK: Ophold ved anden institution Jeg forventer at tage et ophold ved en anden institution i en 6 mdr. periode på et tidspunkt mellem august 2004 og januar 2006 (altså i 4, 5 el. 6 halvår). Jeg er klar over at jo senere opholdet ligger, jo mindre er muligheden for at opholdet påvirker min forskning, men jeg er også nødt til at tage familiære hensyn. DK: Modtaget undervisning Jeg forventer at følge disse kurser: Andre objekt-orienterede sprog, ITU, F2003 Virksomhedssystemer, ITU, F2004 Usability, ITU, E2004 Hertil enten et yderligere (ikke fastlagt) kursus el. tilsvarende aktiviteter. DK: /undervisningsopgaver Jeg forventer at afvikle det nødvendige pligtarbejde i form af undervisning (i samarbejde med Søren Lauesen) på ITU s Design af Brugergrænseflader og Data kursus. 4

5 DK: Tidsplan 1. halvår Marts September 03 Indføring i REA, J2ee & model-baseret udvikling. Udvikling af program-generator til produktion af REA-baseret J2EEapplikation. Modtaget undervisning 1. Deltaget i studiekreds: Andre Objekt-orienterede Sprog, ITU, F2003 = 7,5 ECTS. 2. Deltaget i DMIT 2003, Magleaas = 2 ECTS. 1. A Model-Driven Architecture for REA-Based Systems, TR-CTIT-03-27, University of Twente. 2. Position paper (Ph.D. project description), DMIT Investigating User Interface Engineering In The Model-Driven Architecture, Interact 03 Workshop. DMIT 2003, Summer School. Interact 03, Workshop Closing the Gap. 2. halvår September - Marts 04 Modtaget undervisning Model-baseret UI design/implementation, Task modellering (muligvis baseret på interaction patterns), Færdig prototype 1: Bygge/afvikle UI baseret på en model (ingen) 1. TR om aktuelle prototype. 2. Submitted Position Paper til DC på CHI2004 (11-16 april 04) Doctoral Consortium, CHI2004 (submission 12. januar 04) Gennemført undervisning på DBD, ITU, E halvår (- 3 4 mdr) Marts September 04 Orlov: Juni, Juli & August (+September?), 2004 Design af case study -> Taksonomi for UI platforme i ERP systemer Modtaget undervisning Afslutte Virksomhedssystemer, ITU, F2004. TR om taksonomi for UI platforme i ERP systemer Gennemført undervisning på DBD, ITU, F2004 el. lignende 5

6 4. halvår Muligt ophold ved anden institution September - Marts 05 Afslutte case study -> Taksonomi for UI platforme i ERP systemer Påbegyndt prototype 2: UI generator for domain-specific REA applications - generelt UI framework studium - Design/implementation af prototype Modtaget undervisning Afslutte Usability, ITU, E2004. Submitted paper/ext. abstract til CHI 05 (ca. november) Gennemført undervisning på DBD, ITU, E2004 el. lignende 5. halvår Muligt ophold ved anden institution Marts September 05 Færdig prototype 2: UI generator for domain-specific REA applications - Task understøttelse - Data præsentation/visualisering Modtaget undervisning (ingen) Submitted paper/ext. abstract til Interact 05 (ca. april) CHI halvår Muligt ophold ved anden institution September - Marts 06 Skriveperiode Modtaget undervisning (ingen) Interact 05 (12-16 September 2005) 7. halvår (- 2 3 mdr) Marts Juni 06 Modtaget undervisning Skriveperiode (ingen) 6

7 EN: References Balzert et al, 1996 "The JANUS Application Development Environment-Generating More than the User Interface. " In: Vanderdonckt J. (ed.): Proceedings of CADUI 96. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur 1996 (pp ). Borch et al., A Model Driven Architecture for REA based systems, In Proceedings of the Workshop on Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Application, TR-CTIT-03-27, University of Twente Harning & Vanderdonckt, Proceedings of Closing the Gaps: Software Engineering and Human- Computer Interaction, IFIP 2003; editors preface; workshop at Interact Harning, M. 1996: An Approach to Structured Display Design - Coping with Complexity. In: Vanderdonckt J. (ed.): Proceedings of CADUI 96. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur 1996 (pp ). Lauesen, "User Interface Design -- A Software Engineering Perspective", unpublished. Course material at ITU, July McCarthy & Geerts, An Accounting Object Structure For Knowledge-Based Enterprise Meyer, "Object-oriented Software Construction". Prentice Hall. chapter 1. Nunes, "What drives software development: issues integrating software engineering and humancomputer interaction." In Proceedings of Closing the Gaps: Software Engineering and Human- Computer Interaction, IFIP, OMG, Object Management Group's Model Driven Architecture. OMG, MDA Guide Version Paula et al, "Relating Human-Computer Interaction and Software Engineering Concerns: Towards Extending UML Through an Interaction Modeling Language". In Proceedings of Closing the Gaps: Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, IFIP, Szekely et al, Declarative interface models for user interface construction tools: the Mastermind approach. In Bass L., Unger C. (eds.): Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of EHCI 95. London: Chapman & Hall 1995 (pp ). Szekely, Retrospective and Challenges for Model-Based Interface Development. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, (Vanderdonckt, J. Ed.). Namur University Press, Namur, Wahlster, "Mobile Multimodel Dialogue Systems." Keynote at Interact