Unified user interface design: designing universally accessible interactions

Abstract Designing universally accessible user interfaces means designing for diversity in end-users and contexts of use, and implies making alternative design decisions, at various levels of the interaction design, inherently leading to diversity in the final design outcomes. Towards this end, a design method leading to the construction of a single interface design instance is inappropriate, as it cannot accommodate for diversity of the resulting dialogue artifacts. Therefore, there is a need for a systematic process in which alternative design decisions for different design parameters may be supported. The outcome of such a design process realizes a design space populated with appropriate designed dialogue patterns, along with their associated design parameters (e.g. user- and usage-context-attribute values). This paper discusses the Unified Interface Design Method , a process-oriented design method enabling the organization of diversity-based design decisions around a single hierarchical structure, and encompassing a variety of techniques such as task analysis, abstract design, design polymorphism and design rationale.

[1]  Keith A. Butler,et al.  Designing more deeper: integrating task analysis, process simulation, & object definition , 1997, DIS '97.

[2]  Dan R. Olsen,et al.  Propositional production systems for dialog description , 1990, CHI '90.

[3]  Constantine Stephanidis,et al.  Universal Access in the Information Society: Methods, Tools, and Interaction Technologies , 2001, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[4]  Constantine Stephanidis,et al.  Unified interface development: tools for constructing accessible and usable user interfaces , 1997 .

[5]  Jerry M. Manheimer,et al.  A case study of user interface management system development and application , 1989, CHI '89.

[6]  Victoria Bellotti,et al.  Integrating theoreticians' and practitioners' perspectives with design rationale , 1993, INTERCHI.

[7]  Christian Stary Integrating Workflow Representations into User Interaface Design Representations , 1996, Softw. Concepts Tools.

[8]  Ray Waddington,et al.  Task-Related Knowledge Structures: Analysis, Modelling and Application , 1988, BCS HCI.

[9]  Colin Potts,et al.  Using schematic scenarios to understand user needs , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[10]  Rosalie A. Zobel-Pocock International user interfaces , 1990 .

[11]  Hermann Kaindl,et al.  An integration of scenarios with their purposes in task modeling , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[12]  William M. Lively,et al.  Graphical specification of user interfaces with behavior abstraction , 1989, CHI '89.

[13]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  International user interfaces , 1993 .

[14]  Peter Johnson,et al.  Empowering users in a task-based approach to design , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[15]  Deborah Hix,et al.  Human-computer interface development: concepts and systems for its management , 1989, CSUR.

[16]  Antonio C. Siochi,et al.  The UAN: a user-oriented representation for direct manipulation interface designs , 1990, TOIS.

[17]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[18]  Ralph D. Hill,et al.  Supporting concurrency, communication, and synchronization in human-computer interaction—the Sassafras UIMS , 1986, TOGS.

[19]  Constantine Stephanidis,et al.  A Case Study in Unified User Interface Development: The AVANTI Web Browser , 2000 .

[20]  J PayneStephen,et al.  Task-action grammars , 1986 .

[21]  Robert A. Saldarini Analysis and Design of Business Information Systems , 1990 .

[22]  Allan MacLean,et al.  Design space analysis and use representations , 1995 .

[23]  Gerd Szwillus,et al.  OBSM: a notation to integrate different levels of user interface design , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[24]  Traci Royer Using scenario-based designs to review user interface changes and enhancements , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.