A Framework to Simplify Usability Analysis of Constraint Solvers

Currently, given the complexity of industrial problems, a powerful software is required to solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems. The constraint solvers are a kind of software that are based on a constraint approach. During the last years many constraint solvers have been created, some of them are intricate software and others are libraries to extend the features of a programming language. There are few efforts to have a framework that allows to compare a constraint system and less to allow the usability analysis of the solvers. In most cases, the users of these systems are more concerned about the number of enumeration and propagation strategies that can be used instead of the ease of use of constraint solvers. This paper presents a framework to compare and obtain a simple and objective analysis of the usability of these kind of systems. The paper shows that it is possible to establish comparison in terms of usability, allowing an analysis beyond the simple comparison of their internal strategies.

[1]  Broderick Crawford,et al.  Boosting autonomous search for CSPs via skylines , 2015, Inf. Sci..

[2]  Ian P. Gent,et al.  Minion: A Fast Scalable Constraint Solver , 2006, ECAI.

[3]  Thom W. Frühwirth,et al.  Theory and Practice of Constraint Handling Rules , 1998, J. Log. Program..

[4]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Constraint logic programming using Eclipse , 2007 .

[5]  Neng-Fa Zhou,et al.  The language features and architecture of B-Prolog , 2011, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[6]  Patricia M. Hill,et al.  A Comparative Study of Eight Constraint Programming Languages Over the Boolean and Finite Domains , 2000, Constraints.

[7]  S. Abdennadher,et al.  Principles of constrain systems and constraint solvers , 2006 .

[8]  Pascal Van Hentenryck,et al.  The CHIP System: Constraint Handling In Prolog , 1988, CADE.

[9]  Oscar Mauricio Serrano Jaimes,et al.  EVALUACION DE LA USABILIDAD EN SITIOS WEB, BASADA EN EL ESTANDAR ISO 9241-11 (International Standard (1998) Ergonomic requirements For office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)-Parts II: Guidance on usability , 2012 .

[10]  Mark Wallace,et al.  On Benchmarking Constraint Logic Programming Platforms. Response to Fernandez and Hill's “A Comparative Study of Eight Constraint Programming Languages over the Boolean and Finite Domains” , 2004, Constraints.

[11]  Gert Smolka.  The Development of Oz and Mozart , 2004, MOZ.

[12]  Broderick Crawford,et al.  Using autonomous search for solving constraint satisfaction problems via new modern approaches , 2016, Swarm Evol. Comput..

[13]  Mats Carlsson,et al.  SICStus Prolog—The first 25 years , 2010, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[14]  Pascal Van Hentenryck,et al.  Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Constraint Language cc(FD) , 1994, Constraint Programming.

[15]  Olivier Roussel,et al.  Promoting robust black-box solvers through competitions , 2010, Constraints.

[16]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Programming with Constraints: An Introduction , 1998 .

[17]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Teaching user interface design based on usability engineering , 1989, SGCH.

[18]  Roland H. C. Yap,et al.  The CLP( R ) language and system , 1992, TOPL.

[19]  Antoni Niederliński,et al.  A Gentle Guide to Constraint Logic Programming via ECLiPSe , 2014 .

[20]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Handbook of Constraint Programming , 2006, Handbook of Constraint Programming.

[21]  Arnaud Gotlieb,et al.  A CP framework for testing CP , 2012, Constraints.

[22]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.