=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Current Practices on Model-based Context-aware Adaptation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1013/casfe2013_submission_4.pdf
|volume=Vol-1013
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/casfe/MottiRV13
}}
==Current Practices on Model-based Context-aware Adaptation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1013/casfe2013_submission_4.pdf
Current Practices on Model-based Context-aware
Adaptation
Vivian Genaro Motti1, Dave Raggett2, Jean Vanderdonckt1
1
LILab – Louvain Interaction Laboratory - Université catholique de Louvain
Place des Doyens 1 – Louvain-la-Neuve 1348
2
W3C/ERCIM 2004, Route des Lucioles – Sophia Antipolis - France
vivian.motti@uclouvain.be
ABSTRACT Model-Based User Interface Design facilitates interchange
The scientific community has already investigated in depth of designs through a layered approach that separates out
the benefits of combining model-based approaches for different levels of abstraction in user interface design.
implementing context-aware adaptation. As benefits, it can When a model-based approach is adopted for the
be highlighted: lower development costs, faster time to development of user interfaces (MBUID) [Meixner, 2011],
market, higher usability levels, optimal usage of the first an abstract UI must be defined. This definition, called
resources available and a better user interaction. Although either meta-UI or extra-UI [Coutaz, 2006, Sottet, 2009],
these benefits are claimed, for practitioners it may be not includes necessary tasks and elements for the end user to
always evident that they actually compensate for the costs achieve his or her goal. This definition is technology-
of incorporating such practices into daily work practices. independent, i.e. it is valid regardless of the context of use
Based on the hypothesis that such practices are not widely (platform, device, modality, user, etc.). MDA claims that
adopted, we defined and applied a survey of practitioners to once the abstract specification of the UI is defined, several
identify if and how they actually perceive and adopt such instantiations can be more easily derived, based on specific
approaches. This paper describes the survey, its application characteristics and constraints of the target contexts.
and discusses the results obtained.
Although conceptually such solutions aim at better usability
Author Keywords levels and can be straightforwardly employed, in practice
Survey; Context-awareness; Model-based Approaches. stakeholders tend to believe that its costs outweigh the
ACM Classification Keywords promised benefits, i.e. a steep learning curve is required to
D.2.2 [Software Engineering]: User interfaces. H.1.2 understand its concepts, to use it, to apply it in a large scale,
[Information Systems]: Human factors. H.5.1 additional phases must be added to the development
[Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Multimedia process, more resources are needed, and so on.
Information Systems. H5.2 [Information interfaces and To verify whether the I.T. companies and their stakeholders
presentation]: User Interfaces – User-centered design. actually adopt model-based approaches, context-awareness,
General Terms and adaptation of UI’s in their daily work practices, a
Human Factors; Design. survey was defined and applied. It aims at gathering
information about: the users profile (years of experience,
INTRODUCTION
size of the enterprise, main role), the context information
Current contexts of use vary according to the devices,
(perceived relevance, adoption, methods employed),
platforms, user profiles and environments. The differences
adaptation (usage and information sources) and models
posed by these contexts require applications whose user
(importance, approaches, benefits and drawbacks).
interfaces (UI’s) are able to recognize the contextual
information [Dey, 2000] and to adapt accordingly. Because Thirty-three participants replied to the survey. The results
it is neither feasible nor scalable to implement UI’s for each obtained aid to: better understand and characterize some of
variation of the context, methodologies that support and the working practices that are currently adopted, to foresee
facilitate the development phases have been proposed some potential tendencies in this domain and also to gather
[Motti, 2013], e.g. model-based approaches (MDA). main motivations for adopting model-based approaches for
context-aware adaptation.
This paper presents the survey, its definition, its application
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for steps, the results obtained, their analysis and discussion.
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, related works and fundamental definitions; Section 3
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior presents the hypotheses, survey and methodology; Section 4
specific permission and/or a fee. presents results obtained; Section 5 discusses them
presenting future tendencies, final remarks and future steps.
RELATED WORKS The traditional techniques for software development tend to
According to Bézivin (2004) models are a simplified involve separate teams targeting a specific platform. As a
abstract representation of a system. Model-based consequence, there are many challenges for coordinating,
approaches rely on these abstract representations to provide sharing and managing information, as well as for
the foundations for code generation and reverse maintaining consistency among the resulting outcomes. The
engineering. They aim at alleviating the cost of code model-based approaches focus in shared models, which
production while improving its qualities [Calvary, 2002]. In enable separation of different levels of design concerns.
a Model-Driven Development (MDD) the use of models for Theoretically, with such an approach not only the
software development is emphasized, as well as the need of consistency among designs is improved, but also the
transformations in all phases of the development, from people's specific expertise is better used, regardless of the
system specification to implementation and testing. These activity considered, i.e. data modeling, programming,
transformations could enable the automated implementation usability or graphics design.
of a system in successive steps [Koch, 2006]. Existing
models have already achieved a high level of sophistication, Although the three concepts mentioned above target at
however a number of implicit assumptions are often made. benefits for both end users and developers, they may imply
Although these assumptions tend to simplify in additional costs for development. For Sottet (2009),
implementation issues, they also tend to limit the solutions experience shows that industry still remains code-centric
provided [Calvary, 2002]. and that models still fit in the contemplative category in
HCI: obviously they help in reasoning, they might look
Context-awareness consists in the capability of identifying nice, nevertheless in practice developers love coding above
and considering contextual information [Dey, 2000] in the all [Sottet, 2009]. Therefore, they may hesitate in adopting
development of applications, so that their UI’s can be different approaches during the development processes. In
personalized, delivered across multiple platforms and 2011 Meixner et al. (2011) published an article
adapted according to their location. Customized UI’s summarizing the status of model-based user interface
consider the context of the users, e.g., their preferences, development (MBUID). It gives an overview about
device characteristics, or bandwidth restrictions. Context definitions, approaches and projections for this domain.
information may influence all three applications This overview is comprehensive, however it does not cover
dimensions: content, navigation, and presentation [Koch, the actual application of MBUID in current work practices.
2006]. It is clear that a context-aware application aims at
higher usability levels and a better user experience. Actually some surveys have already been dedicated to
However, to appropriately identify relevant context investigate MBUID, however they are focused, e.g. on
information and correctly incorporate it within a system, literature review [Da Silva, 2001], testing approaches [Neto
additional efforts and resources are required during the et al., 2007], design tools [Perez-Medina, 2007] or
development phases. Context aware design then involves a transformation tools [Schaefer, 2007]. The survey presented
study of the range of contexts expected in everyday use, in this paper focuses on clarifying how stakeholders
and identifying the kinds of adaptation suitable in each actually understand, adopt and consider the concepts of
case. Clearly, adaptation involves efforts that may not interest. The definition and application of this survey is
otherwise be necessary in a traditional design approach. presented and discussed in the next sections.
Furthermore, there are trade-offs and drawbacks in quality METHOD
that must be carefully handled, for instance concerning While for the scientific community it is clearer that model-
privacy, performance and scalability. based approaches and context-aware adaptation provide
benefits for both stakeholders and end users, for the
Adaptation consists in employing the context-awareness in
industry and its practitioners, it may be not so obvious
a way that the information gathered is applied for changing,
whether the benefits actually compensate for the
modifying or transforming the application. For Sottet
(additional) costs involved. To investigate it more in depth,
(2009), due to the heterogeneity of contexts of use,
a survey has been defined and applied.
adaptation is much more complex than selecting the most
appropriate modality when the context of use changes. The This surveys aims at investigating two main hypotheses:
goal is to provide users an application that is more suitable
according to the context of use. However, adaptation also H1)
Stakeholders
are
aware
of
the
importance
and
the
poses some drawbacks. For instance: users may feel benefits
of
considering:
context-‐awareness,
model-‐
confused with the changes of the UI’s, performance issues based
approaches
and
adaptation.
may arise, privacy and scalability are also often impacted. H2)
Stakeholders
do
not
fully
incorporate
into
their
Context-aware adaptation aims at providing users with an daily
work
practices:
context-‐gathering,
model-‐based
enhanced user experience through improved usability in a approaches
and
adaptation.
given context. Model-based approaches are able to support
The survey has been structured as follows:
the design and development of context-aware adaptation.
Figure 1. Profile of the Participants concerning: their years of
experience (left) and size of their company (right) (n=33)
Figure 3. Absolute values for the dimensions of the context
information informed as considered (n=33)
Concerning the years of experience, as Figure 1 left
illustrates, 46% of the participants informed that they have
been working from 5 to 10 years in the I.T. domain, 39%
have been working for more than 10 years and only 15%
for less than 5 years. Concerning the company size, as
Figure 1 right illustrates, 46% of the participants work for
large companies, 18% for small companies, 18% for
Figure 2. Profile of the Participants (n=33) concerning their
medium-sized companies, 12% for micro-entities and 6%
main roles and activities
work independently (for instance as consultants or free-
Target. The respondents of this survey consist of lancers). Concerning the main roles, as Figure 2 illustrates,
practitioners working for Information Technology 40% of the participants stated that they are developers, 24%
companies, with different expertise, background and roles software engineers, 21% project managers, 6% software
(e.g. project manager, software engineers, architects, architects, 3% system analysts, 3% support team leader and
developers, designers, system analysts). They belong to 3% designers.
different countries, (e.g. Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany,
U.K., Spain) and companies (e.g. Yahoo, Sony, BNP Context. In absolute numbers, out of the 33 participants, 27
Paribas – Fortis, etc). stated to consider as contextual dimension the users, 26 the
platform, 12 the application domain and 10 the
Structure. The survey is structured in 4 main parts: the first environment. Concerning the perceived relevance of
part gathers details about the practitioner profile (years of context and its actual usage, as Figure 4 illustrates, the user
experience in the domain, main role, size of the company); is classified as the most relevant dimension for most of the
the second part concerns context-awareness (dimensions participants, followed by the platform and the application
and information considered, their importance, methods domain, while the environment is considered as the least
employed, and level of adoption); the third part covers relevant dimension. These results concern the perception of
adaptation techniques (how they are identified, applied and the participants regarding the relevance of context
presented); and the fourth part gathers information about dimensions. When compared with the actual usage we note
adoption of model-based approaches and their perceived that again the user and platform are considered as the most
importance (advantages and disadvantages). relevant dimensions, while in practice application domain
Application. The survey has been defined and published and environment are the least considered dimensions.
online using google docs. A message has been sent via However, although users are perceived as the most relevant
email to invite participants to collaborate in the study. All dimension of context, in practice not always is considered.
the results are anonymous. The average time to complete While the platform is more considered in practice than
the survey ranges from 5 to 10 minutes. 50 persons have perceived as relevant. The environment is perceived as
been contacted and 33 answers have been obtained. The relevant and considered in practice, and the application
results are presented and discussed in the next sections. domain is more considered as relevant than actually used in
practice.
RESULTS
This section presents the results obtained with the Figure 5 illustrates by means of a stacked bar graphic how
application of the survey, respective figures and graphics. an absolute amount of participants consider the dimensions
in both: level of relevance (left) and actual usage (right). By
Profile. The average profile of the participants consists of analysing these graphics, it is possible to note that users are
I.T. practitioners, working for companies or as independent perceived as the most relevant dimension (by half of the
consultants. The roles vary among software architects, participants), followed by the platform, application domain
engineers, developers, project managers, system analysts and environment. The same tendency was observed
and team leaders. Small, medium and large companies of concerning the practical usage of the dimensions (although
different countries have been considered. The graphics with less significant differences). The environment was the
illustrated by Figure 1 and 2 show these results.
Figure 4. Box plot graphics comparing how participants perceive
the relevance of context (left) and actually use it (right) (n=33)
Figure 7. Venn diagram for the user context dimensions (n=33)
during the development phases. Most of the participants
declared to consider user preferences (22 out of 33),
followed by demographics (17 out of 33) and interests (17
out of 33). Impairments however are only considered by 11
out of 33 participants. Usually a combination of 2
dimensions is considered (13 out of 33 participants), e.g.
impairments and preferences (4), or interests and
Figure 5. Comparison between the amount of participants demographics, 3 out of 29. Only 4 participants informed to
concerning the perceived relevance of context (left) and actually simultaneously consider all 4 dimensions.
use it (right), Likert scale of 5 points (n=33)
dimension considered as least relevant by more participants, Concerning the methods adopted to gather information
and this dimension is also lesthe least used in practice. about the user, 18 out of 33 participants stated that they rely
Actually, in practice, all participants informed to consider at on observation, 14 on guidelines, 13 on interviews, 6 on
some extent: platform, application domain and user. surveys and 7 informed to not adopt any methodology per
se but they just guess information. Two participants
Concerning the context dimensions that the participants informed to collect and monitor real world usage data. Ten
informed to actually use while developing interactive participants informed to adopt just one method, while 13
systems, as Figure 6 illustrates, out of 33 participants, 27 informed to adopt 2, 6 informed to combine 3 methods and
stated to consider information about the user, 26 consider only 1 informed to combine all 4 methods (guidelines,
the platform, 14 the application domain and 10 the interviews, observations and surveys).
environment. These amounts are not exclusive. However
we note that only 4 out of 33 participants informed to use For the platform, as Figure 8 illustrates, the majority of the
all 4 dimensions simultaneously (user, platform, participants (28 out of 33) informed to consider the device
environment and application domain), also 9 use 3 and also 26 out of 33 informed to consider the technology,
dimensions. And the majority, 19 out of 30, stated to use 26 consider the connections, and just 4 take the accessories
just 2 (15) or even just 1 dimension at a time (4). into account. Just 5 out of 33 participants informed to not
consider the device per se, but they (2 participants) consider
Figure 7 illustrates a Venn diagram presenting the the connections or (3 participants) the connections and the
dimensions of user context that are taken into account technologies available.
To gather information about the platform, 19 out of 33
Figure 6. Venn diagram illustrating the context information
considered by participants. Only 4 out of 33 participants
informed to consider 4 dimensions jointly. Figure 8. Venn diagram illustrating the platform context (n=33)
use MDE, 12 use UML diagrams among which 3 informed
to use them combined with MDE.
Concerning their perception about models, stakeholders can
certainly perceive some benefits with their adoption, such
as: reuse, documentation, communication, a common
language. However, in practice, they seem to not be largely
adopted. The participants remarked as main disadvantages,
that models: are hard to customize, delay the process to
achieve results, are difficult to maintain, have incomplete
definitions, require more development efforts and more
skills to be used, have complex definitions and that there is
Figure 9. Venn diagram illustrating the environment context currently a lack of standards for models, causing some
(n=33) issues, as inconsistency and incompatible outcomes.
participants informed to use a default specification; among The participants of the survey remarked some positive
which 7 informed to also perform automatic tests, of which aspects of adopting models during the development process.
2 also observe the context of use and 1 also track the user
interaction. Two participants perform only automatic tests, The main benefits that have been mentioned can be
4 only observe users and just 1 participant stated to just summarized in four aspects, the models:
interview users. Just 1 participant stated to track the user • Provide a common language and standards
interaction (but combined with 3 other methods). Regarding
• Facilitate reuse
the amount of methods, while the majority (18) employs
• Generate systems that are more complete and have
just 1 technique at a time, the remaining participants (15)
more qualities
combine more than one technique: being 3 participants that
combine 3 methods and 12 combine 2 of them. • Aid communication, discussion and analysis
Regarding the environment, most of the participants (18 out As negative aspects of adopting models, some remarks have
of 33) stated to not consider any information. As Figure 9 been highlighted, for example, the models:
illustrates, among the remaining participants (15), 9 stated • Are hard to customize, to adapt, and to maintain
to consider the light level, 7 the stability level, 4 the noise • Lack support (or have incomplete support)
level, and 4 considered other information, as the user • Are hard or slow to synchronize changes
location (via GPS), temperature, and the 3G coverage. • Require more expertise, efforts and time
Concerning the methods adopted, observation sessions, user
interviews, and surveys are applied. Just 1 participant One crucial aspect has been classified as both positive and
informed to use sensors. negative for different participants: the optimization of the
development phases. While some participants believe that
Adaptation. To search for adaptation information, the fewer efforts are needed, others stated that more
participants informed to use: pattern libraries (13 of 33), developments efforts are required, mainly in terms of
public guidelines (10 out of 33), embedded features (8 out expertise and time. Another aspect of disagreement,
of 33), online repositories (8 out of 33). However, concerns achieving a working prototype, while some
approximately half of the participants (17 out 33 participants consider it easier to do with models, others
participants) informed that no adaptation is provided. Only think it is actually harder. The same applies for the
1 participant informed to combine 4 sources of information, complexity of the projects, while one participant stated that
while 7 mentioned to combine 3, 9 to combine 2, and 16 models are not suitable for simple projects, other
participants informed to use only 1 source (or no source). participants stated that models are not suitable for highly
Concerning adaptation strategies, 7 out of 33 participants complex projects.
informed to use graceful degradation, 10 informed to use DISCUSSIONS
progressive enhancement, and 4 informed to combine both By applying the survey a variety of stakeholders have been
strategies. The majority of the stakeholders though (19 out reached. They have different expertise levels, years of
of 33) do not use any of these, and just 1 participant experience, and work for different companies. Although
informed to use animation to smoothly present to the end almost 50% of the participants declared to work for large
users the transition between an original UI and its adapted companies, they have different roles and expertizes.
version. Different countries have also been covered, contributing to
Models. Concerning the usage of the models, the variety of the sample of survey participants.
approximately half of the participants (17 out of 33) Regarding the context dimensions considered, it is clear
informed they are not used at all, 7 participants informed to that mainly the user and platform play an important role,
while application domain and environment are not always
considered as so relevant. Actually it is possible that Concerning H1, it is possible to note that most participants
stakeholders were confused with such definitions, as some are able to recognize the importance of model, however,
participants commented after replying the survey. concerning H2, we noticed that models are not widely used.
Sometimes the concept of environment was misunderstood, Being useful to support certain activities, but not fully
for instance being interpreted as the editor per se, and not adopted. We selected 4 commentaries provided by the
the situation where the interaction takes place, or the participants that support this hypothesis:
circumstances where the interaction takes place. The term
I believe that models are very relevant and useful but
application domain also raised some discussion, being
the lack of "easy to use" applications, "easy to draw
misunderstood with cultural aspects of the user. Even by
models" puts a certain resistance for developers to use
providing a short description about these concepts and a
these tools
couple of examples, not all participants could successfully
comprehend such definitions. … if the model-based approach is directly responsible
for the generated code and any changes in the code
As context dimensions mostly considered, the user and the
automatically reflects in the model then it would be
platform are certainly the most important ones, maybe
extremely relevant to have this kind of approach in my
because by ignoring or omitting them, could prevent the
development phase.
user interaction. However, to complement such results, it
would be necessary to investigate to which extent the …maintaining the docs and the code in a disjoint
contextual information is actually covered. Although there manner makes me waste some of the time [...] given that
is some difference between the perception of relevance for the coding sometimes needs to be changed to work.
context and its actual usage, it is not highly significant.
…I'm not sure models could be used in our domain: UIs
Concerning the H1, which states that stakeholders are are very complex and uses custom widgets
aware of the importance of the concepts, it holds for context
By analyzing the commentaries above we tend to believe
aspects, at least in terms of user, platform and application
that only by having more mature support, frameworks,
domain. Environmental aspects are not considered as
standards and tools, stakeholders could see more
important, or maybe it may be not clear for stakeholders
advantages in using models, and then actually incorporating
what environment states for and how it can be effectively
them into their current work practices.
useful. Concerning H2, most of the participants stated to
use context information, at least to some extent, while The lack of consensus regarding the advantages and
developing projects. disadvantages of models may be justified by the fact that
Adaptation seems to be ignored by most of the participants, these assumptions are dependent on the project itself, so in
since 17 out of 33 stated to provide no adaptation and to certain cases it is obvious that more resources are needed,
while in other cases the development is certainly optimized.
consider a standard scenario instead. This may be a result of
For the complexity it seems like there is a range in which
previous work practices in software development, in which
models are suitable, however further investigations are
a conventional context of use was commonly adopted (i.e.
needed to precise specific figures and criteria to identify
an able-bodied user, a Desktop PC, and a stable
and measure not only the complexity levels of projects, but
environment). Besides this, it is possible that stakeholders
also the costs of applying models, aiming as such to
are not aware of what from and how to consider context
effectively identify when it is suitable to actually adopt
information. We could deduce that the participants of the
model-based approaches.
survey are (to some extent) aware of the importance of
adaptation, since they stated to consider context-awareness FINAL REMARKS
while developing their applications, which validates to This work presents initial results about the current work
some extent H1. However, concerning H2, we clearly note practices of stakeholders regarding: context-awareness,
that adaptation is not largely employed, which could result adaptation and model-based approaches. While most of the
in static applications that may be not suitable for the stakeholders seem to recognize the relevance and benefits
dynamic and varied contexts of use, in which nowadays the of such practice, still they are not considered or just
interaction actually takes place. partially adopted in the software development phases.
Given that the complexity and efforts needed to incorporate
By analyzing the results regarding the perspective of the
them have been pointed as main drawbacks, we believe that
participants about models, it is clear that while they can
by facilitating and supporting them through tools, it may
perceive several benefits, they are still skeptical about their
increase their adoption.
adoption. Mainly the lack of support to use models or
existing solutions that are currently incomplete, force For instance concerning the contextual dimensions,
stakeholders to look for and adopt other alternatives. It participants in general tend to pay less attention to the
seems that without more complete frameworks and environment in which an application is used, than to other
definitions, the usage of models may be reduced for factors such as the user, the platform and application
academic community or for specific situations or projects. domain. This is reflected in the resulting designs they are
able to produce. Improved tools and training would allow 8. G. Meixner, F. Paternò, and J. Vanderdonckt. Past,
designers to design applications that adapt better to present, and future of model-based user interface
contextual changes such as the geolocation, ambient light development. i-com 10(3): 2-11, 2011. http:
and sound levels of the environment, and as such to //giove.isti.cnr.it/attachments/publications/
improve the user interaction. icom%202011%200026%20-%20model-based.pdf.
As future works we plan to perform deeper studies to 9. V. G. Motti, and Vanderdonckt, J. A Computational
complement and refine the results currently obtained and as Framework for Context-aware Adaptation of User
such reach more conclusive interpretations. Interfaces. Seventh International Conference on Research
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2013, Paris,
France, May 29-31 2013. IEEE 2013.
This work received funding from the European
Commission’s Seventh Framework Program under grant 10. A. C. D. Neto, R. Subramanyan, M. Vieira, and G. H.
agreement number 258030 (FP7-ICT-2009-5). Travassos. 2007. A survey on model-based testing
approaches: a systematic review. In Proc. of the 1st ACM
REFERENCES international workshop on Empirical assessment of
1. Bézivin, J. (2004). On the need for megamodels. In software engineering languages and technologies: held in
Proceedings of the Best Practices for Model-Driven conjunction with the 22nd IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on
Software Development, Workshop, held with OOPSLA. Automated Software Engineering (ASE) 2007
2. G. Calvary et al. The cameleon reference framework, (WEASELTech '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31-36.
cameleon project. 2002. DOI=10.1145/1353673.1353681
http://giove.isti.cnr.it/projects/cameleon/ http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1353673.1353681
pdf/CAMELEON20D1.1RefFramework.pdf. 11. F. Paternò, C. Mancini, and S. Meniconi.
3. Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., ConcurTaskTrees: A Diagrammatic Notation for
Souchon, N., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J. (2003). A Specifying Task Models. INTERACT ’97 Proceedings of
Unifying Reference Framework for Multi-target User the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-
Interfaces. Interacting with Computers, Elsevier Science Computer Interaction, Pages 362-369, 1997.
B.V., June, 2003,15(3),289O308. 12. J. L. Perez-Medina, S. Dupuy-Chessa, and A. Front.
4. Coutaz, J. Meta-User Interfaces for Ambient Spaces. In 2007. A survey of model driven engineering tools for user
Proc. of the 5th Int. Ws. on Task Models and Diagrams interface design. In Proc. of the 6th int. conf. on Task
for Users Interface Design: TAMODIA 2006, pp 1-15, models and diagrams for user interface design
Coninx, K., Luyten, K. and Schneider, K. A. (eds.), (TAMODIA'07), Marco Winckler, Philippe Palanque, and
Springer LNCS 4385. Hasselt, Belgium, October 23-24, Hilary Johnson (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2006. Heidelberg, 84-97.
5. Da Silva, P. P. "User interface declarative models and 13. R. Schaefer. 2007. A survey on transformation tools for
development environments: A survey." In Interactive model based user interface development. In Proc. of the
Systems Design, Specification, and Verification, pp. 207- 12th int. conference on Human-computer interaction:
226. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001. interaction design and usability (HCI'07), Julie A. Jacko
(Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1178-1187.
6. Dey, A.K, Abowd, G.D Towards a Better Understanding
of Context and Context-Awareness, CHI 2000 Workshop 14.Sottet, J.S., Calvary, G., Favre, J.M., Coutaz, J.:
on The What, Who, Where, When, and How of Context- Megamodeling and Metamodel-Driven Engineering for
Awareness, The Hague, Netherlands, April 1-6 2000. Plastic User Interfaces: MEGA-UI. In: Human-Centered
Software Engineering. Springer Human-Computer
7. J. M. C. Fonseca et al. W3C Model-Based UI Incubator Interaction Series, pp. 173–200 (2009)
Group Final Report. 2010.
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ model-based-
ui/XGR-mbui-20100504/