This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Reasoning About Interactive System
February 1988 (vol. 14 no. 2)
pp. 272-276

Interactive systems have goals and characteristics that differ from those of batch systems. These differences lead to a need for new techniques, methods, and tools for manipulating and constructing interactive systems. The difference in structure between batch and interactive systems. The difference is considered, focusing on the distinction between command decomposition and component decomposition. The possible ways of solving a problem using an interactive system using action paths, which account for the relatively unconstrained actions of interactive users, are described. It is shown that interactivity is not an inherent characteristic of a system but rather a characteristic that depends on the error profile of its users. The requirements that interaction places on the underlying implementation, specifically the need for incrementality and integration, are considered. The results are applied to several existing classes of systems.

[1] J. Archer, R. Conway, and F. Schneider, "User recovery and reversal in interactive systems,"ACM Trans. Program. Languages Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-19, 1984.
[2] P. Deutsch and E. Taft, Eds., "Requirements for an experimental programming environment," Xerox Palo Alto Res. Center, Tech. Rep. CSL-80-10, June 1980.
[3] W. J. Doherty, "System performance and user behavior," inSEAS Proc. Anniv. Meeting 1981, pp. 132-164.
[4] S. W. Draper and D. A. Norman, "Software engineering for user interfaces,"IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE-11, pp. 252-258, Mar. 1985.
[5] D. Garlan, "Flexible unparsing in a structure editing environment," Dep. Comput. Sci., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Tech. Rep. CMU-CS- 85-129, Apr. 1985.
[6] J. Gosling, "A redisplay algorithm," inProc. ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOA Symp. Text Manip., June 1981, pp. 123-129.
[7] M.D. Good et al., "Building a User-Derived Interface,"Comm. ACM, Oct. 1984, pp. 1032-1043.
[8] J.D. Gould and C.H. Lewis, "Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think,"Comm. ACM, Vol. 28, No. 3, Mar. 1985, pp. 300-311.
[9] D. Notkin, "Interactive structure-oriented computing," Ph.D. dissertation, Dep. Comput. Sci., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Feb. 1984.
[10] D. Notkin,"The Gandalf project,"J. Syst. Software, vol. 5, pp. 91-106, May 1985.
[11] T. Reps,Generating Language-Based Environments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.
[12] M. Shawet al., "Descartes: A programming-language approach to interactive display interfaces," inProc. SIGPLAN '83 Symp. Program. Lang. Issues in Software Syst., June 1983, pp. 100-111.
[13] B. Shneiderman, "Response time and display rate in human performance with computers,"ACM Comput. Surveys, vol. 16, pp. 265- 286, Sept. 1984.
[14] R. M. Stallman, "EMACS: The extensible, customizable, self-documenting display editor," inProc. ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOA Symp. Text Manipulation, pp. 147-156, June 1981.
[15] W. Teitelman,INTERLISP Reference Manual, Xerox Palo Alto Res. Center, Dec. 1975.
[16] W. Teitelman, "The Cedar programming environment: A midterm report and examination," Xerox Palo Alto Res. Center, Tech. Rep. CSL-83-11, June 1984.
[17] J. Vitter, "US&R: A new framework for redoing,"SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 19, pp. 168-176, May 1984.
[18] M. Zelkowitz and M. Branstead, Eds.,Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Rapid Prototyping Symp., Apr. 1982.

Index Terms:
interactive system; command decomposition; component decomposition; action paths; unconstrained actions; error profile; interactive systems; user interfaces
Citation:
V. Ambriola, D. Notkin, "Reasoning About Interactive System," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 272-276, Feb. 1988, doi:10.1109/32.4645
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.