<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Gerrit Meixner DFKI Gerrit.Meixner@dfki.de</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Discussion Points</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ACM Classification Keywords D.2.2. Design Tools and Techniques (User Interfaces)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>H5.2. User Interfaces, User-centered design</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Author Keywords Model-driven development</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>user-centered design, models, workshop report</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Jan Van den Bergh Hasselt University - tUL - IBBT Expertise Centre for Digital Media</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>Stefan Sauer University of Paderborn s-lab - Software Quality Lab</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2010</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>53</fpage>
      <lpage>56</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The workshop on Model-Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces is a forum of multidisciplinary discussion on how to integrate model-driven development with the more informal methods of user-centered design and development of user interfaces. Starting point of the discussion were the tools, models, methods and experiences of the workshop participants. This report presents the overall aims of the workshop and presents the results of the discussion groups. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI 2010): Bridging between User Experience and UI Engineering, organized at the 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April 10, 2010. Copyright © 2010 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes. Re-publication of material from this volume requires permission by the copyright owners. This volume is published by its editors discussion to identify potential points for more elaborate discussions. The resulting set of potential discussion points were grouped in a collaborative effort by all participants into three discussion topics, which were later discussed in three separate discussion groups. Thus, the identified topics reflect important issues in this field from the viewpoints of the workshop participants.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        INTRODUCTION
The workshop on Model-Driven Development of Advanced
User Interfaces (MDDAUI) was the fifth edition of this
workshop series, organized for the first time together with
the CHI conference. Previous editions were organized at
MODELS and IUI conferences. More information on the
background and motivation for this workshop can be found
in the CHI 2010 Extended Abstracts [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>MDDAUI 2010 focused on challenges, opportunities,
practical problems, and proposed solutions to increase the
usability and user experience of user interfaces created with
a model-driven development approach. A highly interactive
format was used to foster discussion between participants.
All participants, except the organizers, were selected based
on papers, which were reviewed by the program committee.
After a short introduction, the thirteen accepted papers were
presented in three blocks. Each block consisted of four or
five seven-minute presentations followed by a short</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Multi-device and multimodal interaction generation</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Development processes</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>HCI patterns</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Cognitive models</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>HCI and usability guidelines and standards on knowledge representation</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>User experience and usability</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>New common reference framework?</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Different abstractions?</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Cost versus usability</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Dynamic distribution</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>End-user development</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>Customization</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-14">
      <title>Iteration and prototyping ISO 13407 [3]</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-15">
      <title>Standards about development processes</title>
      <p>Table 1 Discussion topics and discussion points
In the remainder of this workshop report, the results of the
different discussion groups are summarized, followed by a
discussion on how we created and presented the workshop
poster, which was also created in a collaborative effort of
several workshop participants.</p>
      <p>GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The group discussions formed a major part of the
workshop. They started before lunch and ended just before
the end of the workshop, leaving enough room for the
plenary presentation of the results of the group discussions
and a few short closing remarks.</p>
      <p>Integrate knowledge from other fields
Out of practical considerations the discussion in this
discussion group focused on the integration of knowledge
from cognitive sciences to complement the knowledge
already available from the engineering disciplines. The
central goal of integrating this knowledge is to improve
usability of user interfaces that are generated by a
modeldriven development approach.</p>
      <p>
        Starting point of the discussion were the models and
abstraction levels of the (revised) reference framework for
plastic user interfaces [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] (Cameleon reference framework).
Different contributions to these models from the cognitive
sciences community were proposed for specific abstraction
levels. The saliency model could e.g. be used to test final
user interfaces (as presented by Jeremiah Still in the
workshop) and provide feedback to the concrete user
interface model. It was however indicated that a significant
amount of research is still necessary to establish this
capability. Cognitive workload models were identified as a
potential candidate to enable transition from concrete user
interfaces to abstract user interfaces. The participants of the
discussion group believed that the latter could also benefit
from an inclusion of the (relative) importance of its
components in the model. Finally, the concepts and tasks
layer of the Cameleon reference framework could include
knowledge from the GOMS model (Goals, Operators
Methods Selection rules) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] for task analysis. Support for
indicating task frequency was also considered important.
Besides the models, HCI patterns, guidelines and standards
were identified as important containers of knowledge to
support transitions between the different abstraction levels.
Patterns (also discussed in the presentation of Andreas
Wolff) could assist in transitioning between all abstraction
levels, while standards (including guidelines) were mostly
considered beneficial in the transition between final and
concrete user interfaces.
      </p>
      <p>HCI patterns promise to solve the shortcomings of
standards and guidelines by representing the design
knowledge in a machine-readable and reusable form. By
specifying “when, how and why” they enable automatic
processing of the represented design information and are
therefore suitable for the model-based generation of user
interfaces. For using HCI patterns in a model-based
development process several problems should be addressed
in the future e.g. lack of formalization, lack of organization
and the lack of effective tool support.</p>
      <p>Multi-device and multi-modal interaction generation
This discussion group focused on how to create good user
experience for user interfaces that can (semi-) automatically
adapt to multiple devices and support multi-modal
interaction at runtime. Consistency was identified to be an
important factor for good user experience (or rather
usability, as argued by some participants?). Consistency has
different aspects that need to be balanced: consistency
within the user interface of a single application on a single
device, consistency with user interfaces of other
applications on the same device and consistency between
the user interfaces of the same application on different
devices. Depending on the kind of applications and the
desired user experience, different kinds of consistency may
be more important.</p>
      <p>
        Another discussion point was centered upon the question:
"How to ensure consistency?". Different approaches were
discussed which would be suitable for different kinds of
consistency. Guidelines were considered important,
especially to ensure consistency between user interfaces of
different applications on the same device, but they could
also support consistency within an application's user
interface. The usage of one or more common models (e.g.
at the concepts and task level in the Cameleon reference
framework [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]) for the user interfaces of an application on
multiple platforms was raised as another potential means to
ensure consistency. Device-specific models were, however,
considered necessary to generate usable user interfaces.
In order to benefit from common models for ensuring
consistency, the existence of both mappings and automated
transformations was considered important. Mappings are
important for logging and explaining links between the
different models, while transformations support automation
in the generation of models (and mappings). A last thing
that was prevalent during the discussion was the importance
of explaining why certain guidelines and/or transformations
are present. Guidelines and transformations should become
transparent to other stakeholders and be accomplished, e.g.,
by descriptions of the rationale.
      </p>
      <p>Development processes
A large part of the discussion in the third discussion group
was centered on the role of models in software engineering
and user-centered design processes. First, a set of models
and sub-models was gathered (see Table 2). The discussion
then moved to different properties of these models within
the development process. Three central questions were
examined: "How are models used?", "At which level of
abstraction are they?" and “How are the models related?”
The former question led to the distinction between design
time models and runtime models. For design time models,
tool support (user interface and languages) was considered
a major area for future work, while models at runtime could
be used for simulation (interpreting and executing) and
analysis, and could play a major role in reverse engineering
of UI models from interactive systems. The discussion
group members agreed: "Design-time models can ideally be
used or instrumented as runtime models (or they should at
least be related)."</p>
      <sec id="sec-15-1">
        <title>Model</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-16">
      <title>User model</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-17">
      <title>User activity model</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-18">
      <title>Collaboration model</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-19">
      <title>User interface model</title>
      <sec id="sec-19-1">
        <title>Sub-models</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-20">
      <title>Preference, knowledge</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-21">
      <title>Perception, cognition, (motor) action</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-22">
      <title>Behavior, learning</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-23">
      <title>Task</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-24">
      <title>Scenario</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-25">
      <title>Role</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-26">
      <title>Workflow (procedures, cooperation)</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-27">
      <title>Social behavior</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-28">
      <title>Guidelines (e.g. ergonomic rules)</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-29">
      <title>Dialogue model</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-30">
      <title>Presentation model (input, output)</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-31">
      <title>Platform model (CPU, description of device)</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-32">
      <title>Interaction model</title>
      <p>(interaction techniques,
widgets, gadgets,
UI components,
modalities)
The discussion about abstraction levels started off with the
observation that there are different views of abstractions.</p>
      <p>
        Among them, the Cameleon reference framework [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] and
the Model-Driven Architecture [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] (MDA) were considered
the most relevant. A mapping between their respective
levels of abstraction was documented, while remarking the
different notions of platform: Platform for the Cameleon
reference framework refers to "a class of devices with
similar interaction resources"; for MDA it refers to a certain
combination of software and hardware. When reviewing the
models, it was observed that most of the models did not fit
completely in neither the Cameleon reference framework
nor MDA; some extensions are required to either of them.
      </p>
      <p>The user activity model only fitted the concepts and tasks
level of the Cameleon reference framework.</p>
      <p>Finally, end-user development was also discussed. First,
domain experts were considered as end-users of models,
further distinguishing models for them from (user) models
of them. Models for end-users were considered to support
the active participation of end-users in the development of
the user interface. The activities for which models are
suitable were listed as design, program and customize.</p>
      <p>In order to establish these goals, several requirements were
listed: The models should be understandable, have the
"right" level of abstraction and show the correspondence of
concepts. Furthermore, tool support on different levels as
well as domain-specific languages are also required for
enduser development.</p>
      <p>The last discussion group also touched the topic of
guidelines and standards in user interface development. To
ensure consistency and a high degree of usability across
several user interfaces, standards and guidelines should be
used during the user interface development process. For
automatically considering standards (e.g. ISO 9241,
VDI/VDE 3850) during the user interface generation
process, e.g. for automatic verification in the concrete user
interface layer, standards and guidelines have to be
available in a formal notation. One possible solution could
be the integration of the knowledge of standards and
guidelines in knowledge bases. To reach this goal, much
work still has to be done.
WORKSHOP POSTER
After the workshop, a poster was prepared in cooperation
with several workshop participants. It was designed as an
“interactive poster” inviting the viewers of the poster at the
CHI conference to add artifacts. The poster consists of three
major parts, as can be seen in Figure 1. The top part
documents the goals and the format of the workshop, the
middle part consists of a mind map that illustrates the topics</p>
      <p>Figure 2 Mind map of the topics discussed during the workshop
that were discussed in the workshop, and the bottom part models, mappings and transformations to support
gives an overview of the different models and information better user experience.
artifacts that were considered from the different disciplines
in the creation of user interfaces. The models were Convince domain experts both horizontal, (such
represented in a way similar to yellow post-it notes, while as designers, information architects and usability
pink post-its invited viewers of the poster to contribute experts) and vertical (such as health, finance and
other models and information artifacts. In this way some transportation) of the benefits of participating in
more information artifacts were collected during CHI 2010. the MDDAUI community.
Figure 2 gives a detailed view of the elaborated mind map
that structures the area of model-driven user interface
development. The main aspects identified around the
central concept “models” are relationships (transformations
and mappings), the main characteristics of the development
methods (model-driven, iterative, or user-centered), the
software development phase when models are applied
(analysis, design, or runtime), the different scopes of tools
(creation, evaluation, simulation, end-user, or domain
expert), and the models’ types and abstraction levels. The
latter were elaborated further in the bottom part of the
poster, based on the models in Table 2, but also including a
set of other models as discussed in the previous section.</p>
      <p>DISCUSSION
The fifth edition of MDDAUI, organized the first time at
the CHI conference, shifts the workshop further towards a
better integration with user interface design and HCI.</p>
      <p>According to the conference guidelines, the number of
participants was restricted and emphasis was put on the
discussions. Thus, paper presentations were kept really
short, giving us much time for comprehensive and fruitful
discussions, including both highly respected and well
established experts and novices to the field and/or the
scientific community.</p>
      <p>The workshop also highlighted a number of challenges for
the community and the workshop organizers:</p>
      <p>Development of a reference framework that better
captures the needs of model-driven development
of user interfaces providing good user experience.</p>
      <p>Incorporation of often relatively informal
knowledge (such as HCI patterns, guidelines and
standards) from non-engineering fields into</p>
      <p>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the CHI organizers for providing the opportunity
to organize MDDAUI 2010 together with CHI 2010 as well
as the student volunteers and other people from the CHI
organization and program committees. Special thanks also
go to the institutes and organizations supporting the
participants and organizers to attend and organize the
workshop. Last but not least, many thanks to all MDDAUI
2010 participants who helped to make this workshop a
success.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.K.</given-names>
            <surname>Card</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T. P.</given-names>
            <surname>Moran</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Newell</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The psychology of human-computer interaction</article-title>
          . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
          <year>1983</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Calvary</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Coutaz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Thevenin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Q.</given-names>
            <surname>Limbourg</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Souchon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Bouillon</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Vanderdonckt</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Plasticity of user interfaces: a revised reference framework</article-title>
          . In: First International Workshop on Task Models and
          <article-title>Diagrams for User Interface Design TAMODIA2002</article-title>
          , pages
          <fpage>127</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>134</lpage>
          ,
          <year>July</year>
          18-
          <issue>19</issue>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3. International Standards Organization. ISO 13407 -
          <article-title>Human-centred design processes for interactive systems</article-title>
          . Geneva,
          <year>Switzerland 1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Mukerji</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>MDA guide version 1.0</source>
          .1. http://www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf,
          <year>2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5. J. Van den Bergh, G. Meixner,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Breiner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Pleuss</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Sauer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Hussmann</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Model-driven development of advanced user interfaces</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CHI 2010 Extended Abstracts</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>4429</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>4432</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>