=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1730/p01
|storemode=property
|title=Adaptation of User Interface Based on Contextual Feedback
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1730/p01.pdf
|volume=Vol-1730
|authors=Robertas Damaševičius,Paulius Paškevičius
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/system/DamaseviciusP16
}}
==Adaptation of User Interface Based on Contextual Feedback==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1730/p01.pdf
Adaptation of User Interface
Based on Contextual Feedback
Robertas Damaševičius, Paulius Paškevičius
Department of Software Engineering
Kaunas University of Technology
Kaunas, Lithuania
robertas.damasevicius@ktu.lt
Abstract—The spread of social networks and other online The users are no longer the consumers of media content, but
collaboration-related practices changes the target of software also want to act as producers of content or even co-designers of
products from a single user to virtual communities. Such content delivery platforms [4] to have impact on the face of the
communities view user interfaces of social websites as virtual community.
communication partners (facilitators) rather than mere
communication medium. Effective communication requires The strength of relationships that bind a member to a
proper feedback from community-driven systems that create the community can be influenced by the impact a member can
illusion of active participation and control. Furthermore, make as well as a feedback that a member can receive from a
feedback combined with community effort and evaluation community. The success of a virtual community relies on the
mechanisms such as crowdvoting can be used as a vehicle for voluntary contribution of valuable intellectual property of
adaptation of interfaces to the requests of community. The individuals to a community without explicit compensation [5].
implementation of community-driven interfaces requires the Even if an individual does not receive any explicit reward for
extension of existing user interface development architectures his/her contribution, he/she often wants his/her contribution to
and design patterns. In this paper we analyse known user make impact or at least be seen. Capturing and understanding
interaction and user interface models and present the contextual feedback received from users also is critical in business
feedback based adaptation (CFBA) meta-model, the four-tiered information systems and customer relationship management [6]
user interface (4TUI) architecture, and the Model-Control-View-
as well as in intelligent systems and intelligent user interfaces
Adapter (MCVA) pattern. A case study in the community-driven
[7]. This practice has been recognized for long now and
interface adaptation is presented.
content sharing sites such as Flickr or Youtube have been
Keywords—user interface design, feedback modelling, successful very much due to this practice. However, the need to
adaptable interface, interface evolution, crowdvoting. say or show something to a community is paired with a need to
obtain answers or feedback from it.
INTRODUCTION1 In this paper we analyse feedback models and methods that
The spectacular rise of social networks and other are aimed to increase the role of feedback in community
collaboration-based practices such as crowdsourcing [1] building and support efforts. To introduce the contextual
underlined the importance of effective communication in conditions into user interface evolution process, the contextual
virtual communities. The term “virtual community” refers to a model is required that maps contextual requirements from a
large group of individuals that regularly share and exchange community of users received through feedback mechanisms to
information through computer-mediated mechanisms such as e- the adaptations of user interfaces. Building user interfaces that
mail, weblogs, or forums [2]. Many research studies dynamically adapt to the context is not new [8-12]. Similar
investigated what motivates people to participate in virtual approaches include mediation strategies for integrating the
communities (e.g. see [3]). Out of many contributing factors, input of multiple crowd workers in real-time [13], the
the most important ones are common interests (e.g., extension of the model-view user interface architecture with an
professional networks such as LinkedIn), status seeking and intelligent layer that handles interface events as commands and
reputation (e.g., question-and-answer websites such as allows a user to evolve an interface in a way that is entirely
StackOverflow), and affiliation (e.g., friend networks such as independent of applications [14], and the website plug-in that
Facebook). All these factors depend upon supporting effective makes use of crowdsourcing to collect context-aware activity
communication between a member of the virtual community data based on which suitable user interface adaptations for
and the community represented by its other members and the different target devices are inferred [15].
user interface of the social platform. In virtual communities Our novelty is the interpretation of the feedback from the
this communication is mostly computer-mediated, i.e., the user community of users of a system as the context of the system’s
interface of the platform that supports virtual community acts user interface. This interpretation does not contradict the
as the „face” of the community or as a partner of conversation. definition of context provided in [16]: “context is any
information that can be used to characterize the situation of an
1
Copyright © 2016 held by the authors
entity“. Feedback conveys context information (e.g., the
1
interests, preferences, opinion of user) that has influence over people can participate and contribute their solutions [32]. This
the presentation and functionality of user interface. shift represents a transition from a world in which a small
number of experts define rules, create static products, and make
We propose the crowdvoting-based contextual feedback
decisions for many consumers toward a world in which
meta-model, the four-tier community driven architecture and everyone has interests and opportunities to actively participate
the extension of the MVC pattern for implementing the
in the development of dynamically evolving products [33].
community-driven adaptation of user interfaces at the use stage
rather than at the design stage (as, e.g., in [17]). We describe its The essential role of feedback in natural communication
application in the community-driven website user interface makes it a crucial issue in the development of human-computer
project aimed to engage community members in the controlled user interfaces [34] where users communicate proactively
evolution of website interface. rather than passively or reactively. An example of the proactive
role of the user is so called Split Interfaces, where frequently
I. ROLE OF FEEDBACK IN USER COMPUTER INTERACTION used functionality is automatically copied to a specially
designated adaptive part of the interface [35, 36]. Altered
The term ‘feedback’ originates from the area of cybernetics Prominence is another approach to interface adaptation that
and refers to the information that a system receives from its highlights recently used elements of an interface [37]. Without
environment about the effects or consequences of its actions feedback, a human-computer dialog quickly breaks down while
[18]. In communication, feedback is used for a broad range of proper feedback can create the illusion of a dialog partner
responses at various levels of communication. Commonly, listening [38].
feedback is understood as any information about reaction to a
product or a person that can be used as a basis for improvement According to [19, 28, 29], in order to be effective, feedback
[19]. Allwood et al. [20] claim that feedback is a central must be 1) persuasive (i.e. influencing future state of
functional subsystem of human communication. It consists of community and behaviour of community members), 2)
methods that allow providing, without interrupting the dialog, contextual (i.e. include context information by default), and 3)
information about quality of communication such as ability and informative (i.e. convey useful information), 4) contributive
willingness to have contact, ability to understand (i.e. contribute towards benefit of a community as a whole), 5)
communicated information as well as the emotions and continual (i.e. to support conversation as narrative of
attitudes triggered by the information in the recipient. community), 6) expressive (i.e. demonstrate polarity using
According to Kotzé [21], feedback has three main elements: 1) affective means such as emotions), and 7) effortless (easy to
response, which serves to confirm that the recipient has use). In any case, feedback comes as a response to a previous
received information, 2) modification of behaviour, which communicative act [30], i.e., in reaction to the status or
reassures the user that his input is relevant and has power to opinions of a community members or an entire community in
change, and 3) intelligence (see, e.g., social creativity [22], order to achieve consensus or alignment [31].
collective intelligence [23] and “wisdom of crowds” [24]) that Techniques for collecting user feedback in software
the opinion or understanding of the community can lead to systems cover a wide spectrum, ranging from error reporting
improved quality of communication and usability of a product. facilities to the content-related feedback mechanisms of social
The main aim of feedback is to induce the change of a networks [28]. Examples of such feedback mechanisms are the
software product while the direction of the change itself Facebook “Like” button or the YouTube’s thumbs-up/thumbs-
depends upon the polarity of feedback: positive feedback down, which allow evaluating content, linking members while
(agreement) reinforces the change in the same direction; require only a minimum amount of effort on the users’ side.
negative feedback (disagreement) causes a change in the However, the amount of “likes” and “don’t likes” do not have a
opposite direction, while homeostatic feedback maintains direct influence how information is presented, i.e., the platform
equilibrium [25]. In the long term, such change leads to the of a virtual community has full control over the presentation
evolution of a product or its interface and user feedback acts a while the function of the user is reduced to evaluating other
main driver of such evolution. Software evolution has been users’ content rather than making influence over its
recognized as a key issue in software development and use a presentation. However, if properly implemented feedback
long time ago: as software application is released for use, the could increase affiliation, loyalty and immersion of the
world in which it is situated changes, and therefore new community members beyond simple collection of “likes”.
demands constantly arise [26]. Traditionally, software Examples of such “socially advanced” user interfaces are a
evolution has been dealt with offline using the version-based crowdsourcing interface that collects user-generated mappings
approach as follows: a version is released, user response is between pairs of web pages [39], an adaptive user interface that
collected, a new (updated, corrected) version is released, and is constructed using consensus methods [40], and socially-
the cycle is repeated again. However, in a modern world of adaptable interfaces, interfaces that crowdsource the creation of
software development, software evolution has an task-specific interface customizations and instantly share them
unprecedented speed [27], and feedback can be seen as a with all users of the application [41]. The development of such
means to accommodate and drive the change at the use time. socially advanced interfaces requires adequate models of
interaction, which we discuss in Section 3.
The understanding of increased importance of feedback
mechanisms signifies a shift from consumer cultures
(specialized in producing finished artefacts to be consumed
passively) to the participation-based cultures in which all
2
II. MODELING INTERACTION AND INTERFACE ADAPTATION
Computers and internet are the media of social interaction
in virtual communities. Therefore, the social interaction in
virtual communities is mainly guided by the principles of
human-computer interaction. When humans interact with
computer, they first formulate their goals and then develop a Fig. 2. Seeheim model emphasizing the three different levels of visual
series of steps required to achieve that goal. Such mental model feedback
of action is known as Norman’s Interaction Cycle (see Fig. 1)
[42], which has been used to evaluate the efficiency of a user The Seeheim model (see Fig. 2) [47] reveals the linguistic
interface. The model includes both cognitive and physical nature of the visual feedback identifying three main software
activities, and includes feedback, which is called “Evaluation” modules (or layers): 1) Dialogue Control module handles the
in the model. The Norman’s model does not distinguish syntactic aspects of the interaction and is responsible for the
between the content of the message delivered, its presentation dynamic behaviour of the system; 2) Application Interface
form and its affect (i.e., emotions associated with the message). module provides a semantic interpretation of the information
Therefore, it should be considered only as the simplest received for the dialogue component; 3) Presentation Module
approximation of human-computer interaction. Furthermore, handles the lexical aspects of the interaction such in input as
the interface in the Norman’s model can be interpreted as a well in output and is only aware of the presentation technology.
metaphor of dialogue between interface designer and its users. Visual feedback can be formulated at three different levels:
lexical (Presentation), syntactical (Dialogue Control) and
semantic (Application Interface Model).
The Bezold’s model [48] (see Fig. 3) deals with interface
adaptation, i.e., the ability of the interface to improve itself for
an individual user based on an observation of the user's
behaviour. Adaptation to user behaviour comprises two steps:
1) reasoning on the user-system interaction, and 2) adapting the
user interface accordingly. The user-system interaction is
considered as a linear sequence of basic events, which are
emitted by the interactive system. User modelling algorithms
Fig. 1. Interpretation of the Norman’s Interaction Cycle [42] as a dialogue
between designer and user
extract new knowledge from the user-system interaction and
trigger interface adaptations. A semantic layer is introduced as
The extension of the Norman’s mental model is the Isatine an abstraction of the interactive system that allows
model [43] that is also based the Dieterich’s taxonomy of user implementing reasoning on the user-system interaction. The
interface adaptation [44]. The model states that three entities system-independent logic is defined on the top of the semantic
are involved in the adaptation of user interface: the user, the layer. The adaptation layer decides which adaptations can be
interactive system, or any third party. The adaptation is applied to an interactive system. The advantage of the model is
performed as follows: 1. Goals for user interface adaptation are a multi-layered architecture that allows separation of semantic,
formulated; 2. The user or third party initiates request for interaction and adaptation aspects of user interface.
adaptation; 3. The adaptation is specified as a sequence of
commands issued to the interactive system for execution; 4.
The adaptation is applied using the adaptation support
mechanisms (e.g., through user interface options,
personalization); 5. Transition between the interface before and
after adaptation is performed; 6. Information about adaptation
is issued to the interested parties; and 7. Adaptation is
evaluated. The advantage of the Isatine model is a detailed
guideline for performing adaptation of user interfaces.
The Taylor’s Layered Protocols (LP) model and its
elaboration in [45, 46] are based upon the cognitive principle
that humans use superimposed layers of abstraction in
perception. From this principle the LP model arrives at the Fig. 3. Bezold’s model of interative system adaptation [48]
architecture for structuring user-system interaction. The model
distinguishes between the system’s interpretation of their The Baxley's model of user interface [49] applies the
messages (I-feedback), and information the system expects to separation of concerns and decomposes user interface into
receive from the user (E-feedback). The advantage of the three tiers as follows: Structure (conceptual model, task flow,
model is the classification of feedback types (user’s feedback and organizational model), Behaviour (viewing and navigation,
and system’s feedback). editing and manipulation, user assistance) and Presentation
(layout, graphic design style, text). Here, the conceptual model
supplies the ‘metaphor’ that helps users to interact with an
application, and the organizational model provides
3
classification schemes to group and associate application All analysed models of interface interaction and adaptation
information and interface objects. The model’s advantage is a emphasize the role of feedback in the interface adaptation
clear separation of the different aspects of user interface. process. For interface customization, a separate dedicated
interface (or interface layer) is required. We call this interface,
The RUX (Rich User eXperience) model [50] is used for the meta-interface, since it is overlaid on top of the software
the systematic adaptation of user interfaces over the existing
product’s interface and allows making configuration choices on
web applications. The user interface specification is divided the product’s interface. One example of such meta-interface is
into four levels: 1) Concepts and Tasks, 2) Abstract Interface,
the Facebook’s Like button (see Fig. 5, a), which allows the
3) Concrete Interface and 4) Final Interface. Concepts and Facebook users to express their opinion on the content of a
Tasks are taken from the underlying web model. Abstract
website. The button provides a one-click shortcut to express
Interface provides a common representation to all devices and and externalize the affective reactions of a user. Another
interface development platforms without any kind of spatial
example of meta-interface is provided by Usabilla
arrangement or behaviour. Concrete Interface optimizes the (www.usabilla.com), which is a service for real-time visual
presentation of user interface for a specific device or group of
user feedback tracking. The users of the website click the
devices, and has three Presentation levels: Spatial Presentation feedback button and can select any part of the page to evaluate
allows the spatial arrangement and interface style of to be
it (see Fig. 5, b). Google provides a similar mechanism, where
specified; Temporal Presentation allows the specification of users can highlight any areas of web interface, black out
behaviours which require a temporal synchronization; and
personal information, comment on relevant issues and send it
Interaction Presentation allows modelling the user’s behaviour. to Google (see Fig. 5, c).
Final Interface provides code generation of the modelled
application. The advantage of the RUX model is a hierarchy of
interface entities from most abstract to specific ones, which
could be easily mapped to the hierarchy of models according to
the model-driven architecture (computation-independent,
platform-independent, and platform specific models).
Currently commonly used software interface patterns (such Fig. 5. Feedback in (left to right): Facebook, Usabilla and Google.
as MVC or PAC) are derived from the Seeheim model. The
Presentation–Abstraction–Control (PAC) pattern [51] separates Summarizing, two possible implementations of feedback
an interactive system into three types of components are usually considered [53]: 1) Emoticons-based feedback:
responsible for specific aspects of the application's aiming at expressing the emotionally affected satisfaction
functionality. The abstraction component retrieves and degrees among the end-users via picking an emoticon (virtual
processes the data, the presentation component formats the facial expression) for judging his user experience [6]; 2)
visual and audio presentation of data, and the control Recommendation frames: a simple interaction illustrated
component handles things such as the flow of control and differently (e.g. pop-up window, sliding area), which is mainly
communication between the other two components. In the used in e-commerce to provide client recommendations. The
Model–View–Controller (MVC) pattern (Fig. 4), the Model implementation of such meta-interface together with the need
consists of application data and business rules, the Controller for handling community requests and implementation of
acts as mediator like the Dialogue component in the Seeheim conflict resolution and opinion aggregation mechanisms for
architecture, and a View can be any output representation of crowdvoting, requires the extension of existing user interface
data [52]. Model–View–Presenter (MVP) is a derivative of development architectures and design patterns.
MVC, where the presenter assumes the role of the Controller,
retrieves and formats data for the View, the View is III. FRAMEWORK OF COMMUNITY-DRIVEN USER INTERFACE
responsible for handling the user interface events, which is the DEVELOPMENT
controller's role in MVC, and the Model is strictly a domain
model. In Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM), the ViewModel The proposed framework of community-driven user
is responsible for providing access to data objects and backend interface development consists of 1) the contextual feedback
logic from the Model. View is all elements displayed by the based adaptation (CFBA) metamodel, 2) the four-tiered user
user interface. Model is either a domain model which interface (4TUI) architecture, and 3) the Model-Control-View-
represents the real state content, or the data access layer that Adapter (MCVA) pattern.
represents that content. The CFBA metamodel (see Fig. 6) describes the
relationship between different entities and models in the
modelling and implementation of adaptable and evolvable user
interfaces. The metamodel is based on the Norman’s Model
[42], Taylors Layered Protocols [45], Seeheim model [47] and
its implementations as user interface design patterns (PAC,
MVC and their variants), Bezold’s model [48], Baxley’s model
[49] and RUX model [50]. The CFBA metamodel actually
features two interaction cycles: 1) a traditional cycle, where a
Fig. 4. The MVC pattern
user and a system exchange with messages and feedbacks
during the system’s use, and 2) a community-driven cycle,
4
where a crowdvoting entity collects feedback from a judgments of the community of user interface, the crowdvoting
community of users and changes the presentation of the [23] mechanism is used. The implementation of the user
interface according to the needs of the majority of users. interface is described by the adaptation of the Seeheim model.
The community (crowd) is treated as a part of context that
depends on the Context Model. To collect the opinion and
Fig. 6. Contextual feedback based user interface adaptation metamodel
However, where is a difference, the Presentation entity is The MVCA pattern (see Fig. 8) is an extension of the MVC
variable and different variants of interface presentation can be family of patterns with an additional class for managing the
selected according to the requests of the community aiming to community-driven requests for user interface modification.
guarantee usability while achieving adaptation to the changing Since the community may include users with conflicting
needs of the community of users. The relationship of interface interests, a mechanism for solving these conflicts is required.
to other models is given by the adaptation of the Baxley’s
Community Layer
model: Structure depends upon Task Model, Behaviour
depends upon Dialog and Navigation Model, and Presentation
depends upon interface Metaphor.
Modelling of user interface at different levels of abstraction
is represented by the adaptation of the RUX model, where a
hierarchy of interfaces is used to represent interface
independence and specificity with respect to different platforms
and / or user groups, while allowing to implement automatic
generation of interfaces [54]. We adopt the elements of
crowdsourcing, i.e. crowdvoting, as a model [55] for solving a
problem of interface adaptability and evolvability at use time.
The 4TUI architecture (see Fig. 7) describes the structural
organization of the community-driven user interface system.
The proposed architecture is an extension of the classic three- Fig. 7. Proposed four layered architecture of community-driven business
tiered architectures and models (such as MVC pattern), which applications
include Persistence layer for data storage and handling,
Business layer for business logic; and Presentation layer for
content delivery. The additional fourth layer (tier) is proposed TABLE I. FUNCTIONS OF LAYERS IN FOUR LAYERED SYSTEM
for managing community requests for interface representation Layer Function
and community-driven reasoning based on crowdvoting. This
Persistence Stores data and handles requests for data
layer performs the functions of the semantic layer in the
Bezold’s model [48]. The functions of layers in the four Business Specifies business objects and business logic
layered system are summarized in Table 1. rules, and handles interfacing between presented
5
information and stored data The proposed solution is finding sub-communities or
Presentation Delivers content to browser groups of users with similar interests based on their profiles
and interface preferences, and providing customized variants of
Community Manages community requests for interface
interfaces to these particular groups. The mechanism for
change and provides representation conflict
resolution
conflict solving is based on the consensus-based user profile
determination method [40].
Adapt Interface
Adapter Updateinterface
Community
Fig. 8. Handling interface adaptation requests using the MVCA pattern
The proposed approach for the community-driven user quality is ensured by the intelligent voting mechanisms that
interface adaptation combines elements of the following harnesses “wisdom of crowds” and retargets interface for a
methodologies: Design-for-change [56] for developing specific groups of users.
interface that is evolvable and adaptable to anticipated and
unanticipated changes; Meta-design [57] and related REFERENCES
methodologies (End-User Development [58], Participatory
[1] J. Howe, “The rise of crowdsourcing”, Wired 14(6), 2006.
Design [59], Collaborative Design [60], etc.) as a theoretical
[2] P. Waterson, “Motivation in Online Communities”, in S. Dasgupta (ed.)
foundation for involvement of end-users as co-designers of a
Encyclopedia of Virtual Communties, 2006.
product; and Crowdsourcing [1] for enabling the participation
[3] P. Kollock, “The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public
of a crowd (i.e., a community of dedicated users) in the user goods in cyberspace”, in M.A. Smith, P. Kollock, (Eds.), Communities
interface improvement and evolution process. in Cyberspace, pp. 220-238. London: Routledge.1999.
[4] D. Schuler and A. Namioka, Participatory design: Principles and
IV. CONCLUSIONS practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993.
[5] J. Roberts, I.-H. Hann and S. Slaughter, “Understanding the
The social collaboration based approach can be applied to Motivations, Participation and Performance of Open Source Software
the process of user interface development. The community of Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects”,
users can drive the evolution of user interfaces to increase their Management Science 52(7), July 2006, pp. 984 - 999.
flexibility (the interface adapts flexibly to change requirements [6] S. Abeyratna, G.V. Paramei, H. Tawfik and R. Huang, “An Affective
of the users), plasticity (the interface’s capacity of adaptation to Interface for Conveying User Feedback”, Proc. of 12th International
Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation (UKSim), pp. 369-
cope with changing context), quality (the interface of a product 374, 2010.
represents the combined efforts aka collective intelligence of [7] S. Stumpf, E. Sullivan, E. Fitzhenry, I. Oberst, W.-K. Wong and M.M.
the community of users), usability (the community itself selects Burnett, “Integrating rich user feedback into intelligent user interfaces”,
and adopts via natural selection the best practices of interface Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI
design), cultural acceptance (the interface reflects the culture of 2008), pp. 50-59, 2008.
its users), user satisfaction (opportunity to have a say and an [8] J. Eisenstein, J. Vanderdonckt and A. Puerta, “Adapting to mobile
impact increases user satisfaction) and product popularity (the contexts with user-interface modeling”, Proc. of the Third IEEE
Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications
users have control over what they see and what they get). (WMCSA'00), pp. 83-92, 2000.
The advantages of the proposed framework for community- [9] G. Menkhaus and W. Pree, “User interface tailoring for multi-platform
driven user interface adaptation are as follows: iterative service access”, Proc. of the 7th international conference on intelligent
user interfaces (IUI '02), pp. 208-209, 2002.
refinement of user interface enables interface evolution; the
[10] P. Repo, “Facilitating user interface adaptation to mobile devices”, Proc.
community performs interface evaluation; interface
of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction
dynamically changes in response to the changing requirements (NordiCHI '04), pp. 433-436, 2004.
of the community; the user interface evolution process is [11] M. Bisignano, G. Di Modica and O. Tomarchio, “Dynamic User
outsourced to the community of users and is fully automated; Interface Adaptation for Mobile Computing Devices”, Proc. of the 2005
community feedback ensures that interface of the product is Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT-W
prevented from ageing and decay so long as the community is '05), pp. 158-161, 2005.
interested in the services provided by the product itself; [12] G. Calvary, J. Coutaz and D. Thevenin, “Supporting Context Changes
collective intelligence allows to evolve a user interface that is for Plastic User Interfaces: a Process and a Mechanism”, Proc. of the
Joint AFIHM-BCS Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction IHM-HCI
inherently usable, culturally-acceptable and visually-pleasant; 2001, vol. I, pp. 349-363. Springer, London, 2001.
direct real-time user participation in the user interface [13] W.S. Lasecki, K.I. Murray, S. White, R.C. Miller and J.P. Bigham,
evolution increases user engagement and satisfaction; interface “Real-time Crowd Control of Existing Interfaces”, Proc. of the ACM
6
Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2011), [36] K.Z. Gajos, D.S. Weld, and J.O. Wobbrock, “Decision-theoretic user
pp. 23-32, 2001. interface generation”, Proc. of the 23rd national conference on Artificial
[14] J. Dicker and B. Cowan, “Platforms for Interface Evolution”, Proc. of intelligence (AAAI'08), Vol. 3, pp. 1532-1536, 2008.
ACM CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [37] K. Gajos, D. Christianson, R. Hoffmann, T. Shaked, K. Henning, J.J.
(CHI’08). Long and D.S. Weld, “Fast and robust interface generation for
[15] M. Speicher, Crowdsourced Evaluation and Adaptation of Web ubiquitous applications”, Proc. of the 7th international Conference on
Interfaces for Touch. Master thesis. Global Information Systems Group, Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp'05), pp. 37-55, 2005.
ETH Zurich, 2012. [38] M.A. Pérez, “Conversational dialogue in graphical user interfaces:
[16] A.K. Dey, “Understanding and Using Context”, Personal and ubiquitous interaction technique feedback and dialogue structure”, in CHI 95
computing, Vol. 5, February 2001, pp. 4-7. Conference Companion, 1995, pp. 71-72.
[17] S. Hennig, J. Van den Bergh, K. Luyten and A. Braune, “User driven [39] J. Kim, R. Kumar and S.R. Klemmer, “Crowdsourcing Interface for
evolution of user interface models - The FLEPR approach”, Proc. of the Collecting Correspondences of Web Pages”, UIST '09 Poster, Victoria,
13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer BC, Canada 2009.
interaction - (INTERACT'11), Part III. Springer-Verlag, pp. 610-627, [40] J. Sobecki and N.T. Nguyen, “Consensus-based adaptive interface
2011. construction for multiplatform Web applications”, Proc. of 4th
[18] N. Wiener, Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated
and the Machine. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1948. Learning, IDEAL 2003. Springer LNCS Vol. 2690, 2003, pp. 457-461.
[19] M. Norgaard and K. Hornbaek, Exploring the value of usability [41] B. Lafreniere and M. Terry, “Socially-Adaptable Interfaces:
feedback formats. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction Crowdsourcing Customization”, Proc. of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on
25(1), pp. 49-74, 2009. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), 2011.
[20] J. Allwood, J. Nivre and E. Ahlsén, “On the semantics and pragmatics of [42] D.A. Norman, “Cognitive Engineering”, in D.A. Norman and S.W.
linguistic feedback”, Journal of Semantics 9(1), 1992, pp. 1-26. Draper (eds.), User Centered System Design. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, 1986, pp. 31–61.
[21] P. Kotzé, “Feedback And Task Analysis For E-Commerce Sites”, Proc.
of the ISSA 2002 Information for Security for South-Africa 2nd Annual [43] V. Lopez-Jaquero, J. Vanderdonckt, F. Montero, and P. Gonzalez,
Conference, 10-12 July 2002, Muldersdrift, South Africa, pp. 1-17. “Towards an Extended Model of User Interface Adaptation: The Isatine
Framework”, in J. Gulliksen, M.B. Harning, P. Palanque, G.C. Veer and
[22] A. Warr and E. O'Neill, “Getting Creative with Participatory Design”,
J. Wesson (Eds.), Engineering Interactive Systems, LNCS, Vol. 4940.
Proc. of Participatory Design Conference, 2004, pp. 57-61. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 374-392, 2008.
[23] J.M. Leimeister, “Collective Intelligence”, Business & Information [44] H. Dieterich, U. Malinowski, T. Kühme and M. Schneider-Hufschmidt,
Systems Engineering, 2(4), 2010, pp. 245-248.
“State of the Art in Adaptive User Interfaces”, in: M. Schneider-
[24] J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, Anchor, 2005. Hufschmidt, T. Khüme and U. Malinowski (eds.), Adaptive User
[25] A. Spink and T. Saracevic, “Human-computer interaction in information Interfaces: Principle and Practice. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
retrieval: Nature and manifestations of feedback”, Interacting with [45] J.H. Eggen, R. Haakma and J.H.D.M. Westerink, “Layered Protocols:
Computers, 10(3), pp. 249-267, 1998. hands-on experience”, International Journal on Human–Computer
[26] M.M. Lehman and L.A. Belady (eds.), Program evolution: processes of Studies, 1996, 44, pp. 45–72.
software change. Academic Press Professional, 1985. [46] R. Haakma, Layered Feedback in User-System Interaction, Master
[27] C. Ghezzi, P. Inverardi and C. Montangero, “Dynamically Evolvable thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
Dependable Software: From Oxymoron to Reality”, in P. Degano, R. [47] A.J. Dix, B. Russell and A. Wood, “Architectures to make Simple
Nicola and J. Meseguer (Eds.), Concurrency, Graphs and Models, LNCS Visualizations using Simple Systems”, Proc. of Advanced Visual
vol. 5065. Springer-Verlag, pp. 330-353, 2008. Interfaces, AVI2000, 2000, pp. 51-60.
[28] F. Heller, L. Lichtschlag, M. Wittenhagen, T. Karrer and J. Borchers, [48] M. Bezold, “A Semantic Framework for Adapting Interactive Systems in
“Me Hates This: Exploring Different Levels of Use”, Proc. of ACM CHI Intelligent Environments”, Proc. of Intelligent Environments 2009, pp.
2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), 204-211.
2011, pp. 1357-1362.
[49] B. Baxley, “Universal model of a user interface”, Proc. of Conference on
[29] R. Mendoza Gonzalez, J. Munoz Arteaga, F.J Alvarez and M. Vargas Designing for user experiences (DUX '03), pp. 1-14, 2003.
Martin, “Integration of auditive and visual feedback in the design of [50] J.C. Preciado, M.L.Trigueros and F. Sánchez-Figueroa, “An Approach
interfaces for security applications”, in Workshop on Perspectives,
to Support the Web User Interfaces Evolution”, Proc. of the 2nd Int.
Challenges and Opportunities for Human-Computer Interaction in Latin Workshop on Adaptation and Evolution in Web Systems Engineering
America (CLIHC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2007.
AEWSE'07, 2007. CEUR Workshop Proc. 267.
[30] L. Cerrato, “A comparison between feedback strategies in human-to-
[51] J. Coutaz, “PAC: an Implementation Model for Dialog Design”, Proc. of
human and human-machine communication”, Proc. of 7th International the Interact'87 conference, 1987, pp. 431–436.
Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP2002 -
INTERSPEECH 2002, Denver, Colorado, USA, September 16-20, 2002. [52] O. Moravcik, T. Skripcak, D. Petrik and P. Schreiber, “Approaches of
the Modern Software Development”, International Journal of Machine
[31] R.-J. Beun, R.M. van Eijk and H. Prust, “Ontological Feedback in Learning and Computing, Vol. 1, No. 5, December 2011, pp. 479-487.
Multiagent Systems”, Proc. of the Third International Joint Conference
on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS '04), Vol. 1, [53] N. Mezhoudi, “User interface adaptation based on user feedback and
pp. 110-117, 2004. machine learning”, IUI Companion, 2013, pp. 25-28
[32] G. Fischer, “Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of [54] V. Štuikys, R. Damaševičius, J. Valančius, G. Ziberkas, V.
participation”, Interactions 18(3), pp. 42-53, 2011. Limanauskienė and E. Toldinas, “Generation of Database Interfaces for
Nomadic Users”, Information Technology & Control, No. 2(27), pp. 41-
[33] G. Fischer, “End User Development and Meta-Design: Foundations for
50, 2003.
Cultures of Participation”, Journal of Organizational and End User
Computing, 22(1), pp. 52-82, 2010. [55] D. Brabham, “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An
introduction and cases”, Convergence: The International Journal of
[34] S. Kopp, J. Allwood, K. Grammer, E. Ahlsén and T. Stocksmeier,
Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), pp. 75-90, 2008.
“Modeling Embodied Feedback with Virtual Humans”, ZiF Workshop,
2006, pp. 18-37. [56] V. Štuikys, R. Damaševičius, M. Montvilas, V. Limanauskiene and G.
Ziberkas, “Educational Portal Development Model for Implementing
[35] A. Sears and B. Shneiderman, “Split menus: effectively using selection
Design for Change”, Information Technology and Control, 35(3), pp.
frequency to organize menus”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human 222-228, 2006.
Interaction (TOCHI), v.1 n.1, p.27-51, March 1994.
7
[57] G. Fischer, “Meta-Design: A Conceptual Framework for End-User [59] Y. Dittrich, S. Eriksén and C. Hansson, “PD in the Wild; Evolving
Software Engineering”, in M.M. Burnett, G. Engels, B.A. Myers and G. Practices of Design in Use”, Proc. of the Participatory Design
Rothermel (eds.), End-User Software Engineering, Dagstuhl Seminar Conference (PDC 02), 2002, pp. 124-134.
Proc. 07081, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2007. [60] L. Zhu, “Cultivating collaborative design: design for evolution”, Proc. of
[58] H. Lieberman, F. Paternó, M. Klann and V. Wulf, “End-user the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design (DESIRE
development: An emerging paradigm”, in H. Lieberman, F. Paterno and '11), pp. 255-266, 2011.
V.Wulf (eds.), End-user development. Springer, pp. 9-15, 2005.
8