User Interface Toolkits and Adaptive Interfaces
- 1 Slides
- 2 Readings
- 3 Reading Critiques
- 3.1 Adriano Maron 15:44:08 9/27/2015
- 3.2 Ameya Daphalapurkar 17:14:33 9/27/2015
- 3.3 Matthew Barren 21:48:17 9/27/2015
- 3.4 Xinyue Huang 22:57:54 9/27/2015
- 3.5 Mingda Zhang 23:30:49 9/27/2015
- 3.6 Manali Shimpi 23:33:24 9/27/2015
- 3.7 Chi Zhang 23:58:17 9/27/2015
- 3.8 Vineet Raghu 0:19:04 9/28/2015
- 3.9 Long Nguyen 0:36:45 9/28/2015
- 3.10 Zinan Zhang 1:02:36 9/28/2015
- 3.11 Lei Zhao 1:21:37 9/28/2015
- 3.12 Shijia Liu 1:34:53 9/28/2015
- 3.13 Priyanka Walke 2:09:04 9/28/2015
- 3.14 Samanvoy Panati 3:21:26 9/28/2015
- 3.15 Jesse Davis 4:08:59 9/28/2015
- 3.16 Darshan Balakrishna Shetty 7:51:24 9/28/2015
- 3.17 Zihao Zhao 7:56:32 9/28/2015
- 3.18 Sudeepthi Manukonda 8:52:03 9/28/2015
- 3.19 Mahbaneh Eshaghzadeh Torbati 8:54:09 9/28/2015
- Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools, Brad Myers, Scott E. Hudson, Randy Pausch, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, March 2000, pp. 3 - 28.
- Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces, Eric Horvitz, CHI 1999: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 159-166
- Proximity Toolkit is a catalyst for developing applications that make use of spatial information, and relations between objects in space.
- Direct manipulation vs. interface agents, Ben Shneiderman, Pattie Maes, ACM interactions, Volume 4 Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 1997 (original debate happened in CHI 1997)
Adriano Maron 15:44:08 9/27/2015
Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools: This paper discusses the key points that contributed to the success and failure of many tools that helped in the development of user interfaces. The work is motivated by the success that such tools had in the past, helping developers to produce high quality user interfaces with less effort. However, the sophistication level of those tools were due to the homogeneity of the hardware and software available at that time. Given the eminent proliferation of diverse computational systems, an entire new spectrum of user interfaces will emerge, and the UI development tools must evolve to adapt themselves to such heterogeneity. In this context, the authors evaluate a series of UI tools under using the following aspects: parts of the UI that are addressed, threshold and ceiling, path of least resistance, predictability and moving targets. The success cases analyzed in this paper tackled specific problems, instead of serving as a generic solution for different necessities. Window Managers helped with the management of multiple windows (multitasking) in the same screen, while Interactive Graphical Tools provided a graphical approach to create user interfaces. Component Systems allowed developers to specify their graphical components in terms of modules that could be easily maintained and reused. One of the main reasons why tools were not successful is their Threshold, i.e., the level of difficulty for learning how to use it. Formal Language Based Tools and Constraints are good examples of complex solutions that were not adopted. Also, solutions for problems that eventually disappeared due to standardization were not successful, such as UI Management Systems. Most of the trends discussed in this 1999 paper are a reality today, and the challenges of using many distinct user interfaces are present in everyone's daily life. One of the main challenges introduced with the proliferation of connected devices is the different input/output capabilities. Besides the traditional challenge of devices with different screen sizes, there are now many computational devices that do not provide a screen at all, but are responsible for performing important tasks, such as controlling temperature (thermostats), changing lights (smart lamps). The question posed here is: how to seamless control these, and many other personal (heterogeneous) devices through a homogeneous interface? The second major challenge, arising from the high degree of connectivity between devices, is how to intuitively manage the communication and sharing of information between devices and people. New tools will have to provide means to implement features for data representation, analysis and decision making, as well for exposing and interpreting the device state. This approach correlates with the End-User Programming, Customization, and Scripting, where the tools should help developers to create features for user-defined scripts. A good example of this approach is the IFTT service, where users can create automated actions based on the state of multiple services/devices. One topic not addressed at all in this paper is the aspect of tools for UI testing. Currently, there is a great number of options for testing software modules and methods. However, there is a clear limitation in the number of tools for UI testing, even in traditional desktops. In order to obtain a reliable product with good user experience, such testing tools are necessary, and should be addressed in the discussion. ================================================= Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces: This paper discusses about the mixed-initiative user interfaces, where automated actions taken by the system work simultaneously with the direct manipulation from the user. The author claims that it is possible to obtain such collaboration as long as some critical factors are considered during the development of such system. The use-case considered in this paper in based on an agent (personal assistant) that helps scheduling events in the Microsoft's Outlook calendar based on emails being read. The relevant contribution of this paper is the specification of the many critical factors that are relevant when integrating automation services in user interfaces. Although the use-case was rather simple, the premises are valid for more complex applications, such as home automation and personal assistants, such as Siri and Cortana. Value-added automation can be considered the most significant factor of automated services. Also, some contexts may require attention and interaction from the user, while, in other cases, the automation should not require the user's attention. In the Home Automation scenario, changing the thermostat temperature should not require user interaction, while an automated system for ordering groceries/supplies should require some confirmation from the user. The main challenges in the mixed-initiative user interfaces are related to understanding and continuously learning about user's goals and preferences. Machine Learning techniques are usually integrated with automation schemes, and such combination is capable of enhancing the user experience when dealing with daily/repetitive tasks.
Ameya Daphalapurkar 17:14:33 9/27/2015
The paper titled ’Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools’ focuses on the user interface tools and the various aspects related to the targets they addressed, their predictability, and he various successes and failures experienced in the lifecycle. The paper in its time predicted that desktop won’t be any longer a mainstream use in future and it was certainly a perfect prediction from the author’s side as the scenario today is all about cell phones, PDAs, notepads, the world wide internets with the space for personal network etc. The stability is achieved in term of computing platform which provides consistency of interfaces and helps to build skills which switch from application to platform. Paper proposes the need to have a change in terms of standard model of desktop which cannot be applicable everywhere for example on a cell phone and similarly the typical window widgets are not a match for big interfaces. Using tools is another boost as it helps reduce the amount of code needed asserts a prototype and helps apply a consistency in the terms of the look and feel. Paper states the evaluation of tools based on various factors. The tools that helped achieve success to a user interface, the measure of amount of difficulty of learning also called as thresholding, and what amount of work can be done by the system called as ceiling, sorting right things from wrong, predictability and flickering targets. The various successful tools were window managers and toolkits as they helped manage resources in limited number of pixels and limited visual field. Event languages helped with the direct manipulation as they generated events for each action which were sent to individual event handlers for further processing. Interactive graphical tools help adopt programming codes in suitable interactive graphical format. Component systems help create application by dynamically combining separate codes. Scripting languages also help represent domain and task knowledge easily. Object oriented approach uses visible manifested objects. Recognition based user interfaces require software tp interpret the input stream. Paper reaches the conclusion based on how research has had enormous impact on process of development of software. It also correctly predicts the radical change that will be brought in the industry of human computer interaction. **************** The paper titled ‘Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces’ focuses on the debate for user interface research on tools development that directly manipulate objects against directing effort toward interface agents. Paper talks about research in field of HCI. Also, there are many critical factors for effective integration of automated services. Providing automated services for appropriate value, not being aware or skeptical for a goal, keeping track of the attention of the users and cost and benefits of actions. Guiding invocation with consideration of expected value, providing efficient means by which users can start or terminate automated services. Minimizing the cost of the poor decisions, scoping precision of services, mechanisms for efficient collaboration, installing perfect social behaviors, maintaining working memory and learning and observing. Paper thus focuses on principles of designing mixed initiative user interfaces and methods for managing the uncertainties, Thus, addressing this problems has certainly helped fundamental enhancements in the field.
Matthew Barren 21:48:17 9/27/2015
Principles of Mixed User Interfaces Summary: Horvitz examines the impact of using automation in scheduling and logistics for assigning calendar events by predicting user goals. In order to predict user intentions with fidelity, software uses historical data of user actions and current stimulus, which guide machine selection among choices of actions. Automation of user tasks has the opportunity to provide quicker achievement of goals through intra and inter software communication. The ability of performing tasks similar to LookOut provide faster task completion and additionally, users who may have been unaware of particular services and connectivity between software will have a greater view of the potential of the application. LookOut-like features are common in many smart phone devices today. For example, data mining of an individual’s Gmail inbox to find upcoming airplane flights are uploaded onto a Google Calendar. In Horvitz examination of this automation, he considers the importance of cost, timing, and benefit to the user based on the accomplishment of correctly predicting a users goals. This is essential to provide an appropriate piece of automated software. If the application does not correctly act upon the users goals, the frustration at the user level for incorrect actions can lead to poor or no adoption of the system. With this in mind, Horivitz examines the potential utility a user will receive by associating probabilities of acting (or not acting) relating the current stimulus to prior test data. In doing so, it is the hope that LookOut would be able to decipher when it is appropriate to create a calendar event, and when should the interface enter a dialogue with the user for additional clarity. The manner in which users interact with smart phones today, the quantity of human-computer interactions provides a plethora of data points. Extending the ideas of LookOut, geographical data could be used to further provide quality in predictions. Consider the numerous differences in the way people interact with their cell phones in different locations. For example, in an office or a public setting it may be obtrusive for a computer to initiate a verbal dialogue with the user. Vice-versa, at home or while driving in the car, a verbal dialogue might be the preferred means of communicating with the software. That being said, automated software can use geographical data to train social cues for appropriate ways to interact with users. Summary of Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools (Myers, Hudson, and Pausch): Myers, Hudson, and Pausch introduce a history of broad models, tools, and paradigms that have led to the interface design and technology just before the new millennium. Additionally, they point out the failures of some interface approaches from being adopted, and they hypothesize about the future of interfaces. The praise and critiques of each model and tool that Myers, Hudson, and Pausch point out provide an obvious connection for why interfaces have evolved as they have. Their future predictions for interface requirements and types are spot on with contemporary technology. For instance, they point out new types of input and output devices for technology. At this point, there is a blurred line between input and output devices considering many different devices can at times be controlled directly or indirectly by other devices. For example, selecting music tracks on a computer can occur both from the computer application and from a mobile device. Additionally, they hypothesize many gestures that are in use today. The availability of cameras on cell phones allows users to control different aspects of a mobile device through gesturing. Myers, Hudson, and Pausch are on target when saying that implementation of three dimensional technologies will be a more challenging integration. As of today, 3D technology is limited in its use. Apple has recently announced it will allow for varying types of touch formats. Some mobile gaming devices provide a three dimensional display. These two examples are still heavily rooted in the a two dimensional baseline for the interface. The practicality and purpose of three dimensional interactions needs to be more clearly defined. For example, would it be easier to access files on a computer by clicking through a series of folders, or by opening a three dimensional draw on the computer screen and grabbing the file with hand gestures. The traditional interaction may be more optimal than the sleeker three dimensional movement. The authors also discuss the idea of lowering the threshold to develop an interface. One technology type that was not successful was automated generation of interfaces. This abstraction leads to a generalization of the interface creation and will likely not map to the users goals. There is a common theme with automatically generated material and a disconnect to goal achievement. A program needs to make many assumptions in producing its output. Consider a different example, creating a webpage. When a user automatically generates a web page, it is common to want to provide some additional touches to reformat the product. In some packages, this is difficult because of the layout of the code produced, the quantity of code, and the abstraction of the product. These same arguments can be applied to an automatically generated interface. With this being said, there may be an opportunity for some form of partial generation of interfaces today. Many interfaces on a mobile device do not require all of the features of a computer based interface. With these typically simpler designs, generating a baseline interface could be beneficial for users who are new to design.
Xinyue Huang 22:57:54 9/27/2015
Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools The paper introduces both the success of the past Interface software tools and the failures of them. It also gives some promising prospects for user interface tools and help analyzes the challenges and promising directions of this area. For evaluating tools, there are many dimensionality such as thresholding and ceiling, path of least resistance, predictability and moving targets. In the past, there are a lot of tools that success and have tremendous impact on user interface development. For example, overlapping windows help manage the limited resources on both physical screen space and also human attention and visual field. Another is event languages, which map well to the direct manipulation graphical user interface. The reason for the success of interface builders is that they use graphical means to express graphical concepts and interface builders also provide a low threshold to use and avoid a steep learning curve. Some other successful applications include component systems, scripting languages, hypertext and object-oriented programming. Hypertext provides a low threshold of use and soon become popular. Besides these successes, there are also many approaches which end in failures. For example, user interface management systems, which is an analogy to database management systems, actually not work out well in practice. Another one is formal language based tools, which causes failure because they had a high threshold. One of the challenges for user interface is to apply powerful approaches while making the accessible and understandable to typical developers. Considering the design themes of user interface tools, there are some prospects and visions. One important prospect is ubiquitous computing. Ubiquitous computing includes varying input and output capabilities in which that developers can describe the input and output needs of their applications, vendors can describe the input and output capabilities of their devices, and users can specify their preferences. The user interface also need to be built into hardware so that the physical properties of devices have to be taken into consideration. Another aspect is that modern computers are not only for computing but are also for communications, so it is also important for interface to provide services of data sharing and synchronization. Besides ubiquitous computing, recognition-based user interface would be also important. It is different from conventional user interface because the input is uncertain for the reason that the recognizer would make errors interpreting the input. Another influencing aspects are three-dimensional technologies and end-user programming. In conclusion, the paper states that there would be a radical change in user interface design, so user interface tools would also meet the same challenges. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces The paper introduces the principles that provide a foundation for integrating research in direct manipulation with work on interface agents. It takes the system LookOut as an example to illustrate what it can do and what the characteristics need to be achieved. The paper first illustrates some critical factors to integrate automated services with direct manipulation interfaces.They include developing significant value-added automation, considering uncertainty about a user’s goals, considering the status of a user’s attention in the timing of services, inferring ideal action in light of costs, benefits, and uncertainties, employing dialog to resolve key uncertainties, allowing efficient direct invocation and termination, minimizing the cost of poor guesses about action and timing, scoping precision of service to match uncertainty, variation in goals, providing mechanisms for efficient agent-user collaboration to refine results, employing socially appropriate behaviors for agent-user interaction, maintaining working memory of recent interactions and continuing to learn by observing. For value-added service, LookOut system centers scheduling analysis on a goal-specific parsing of the text contained in the email message that has focus. For decision making under uncertainty, LookOut system would have three actions based on inferred probability, the first is to do nothing but simply wait for continued direct manipulation of Outlook. The second is to engage the user in a dialog about his or her intentions with regards to providing a service, and the third one is to go ahead and attempts to provide its service by invoking the second phase of analysis. LookOut also has multiple modalities, such as manual modality and automated-assistance modality. manual operation would take actions only if a user click on the icon. When placed in automated-assistance mode, LookOut works by launching and populating fields in OutLook windows. LookOut can also handle invocation failures and inferring beliefs about a user’s goals. Such inference is based on the support vector machine analysis. Given such beliefs, LookOut then computed the probability that a use wishes to schedule. In this period, the expected utility and the thresholds for agent action would be set. LookOut system also has the mechanism of user attention and the timing service, and machinery for lifelong learning.
Mingda Zhang 23:30:49 9/27/2015
"Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools" - This paper mainly discussed about the tools has been obsoleted, currently used and will be needed by user interface designers. It is published in 1999 and some of the predictions in the paper have been validated, and some promising technologies have been proved to be critical nowadays. It is always fun and inspiring to learn about the history. The paper first introduced several evaluating criteria for good UI tools, such as low threshold and high ceiling, path with least resistance, high predictability. Also, it is worth noting that the rapid development of interface technology is making tools rapidly iterating. Actually, some tools are good but they are not spreading soon enough so the next generations have taken their place. From these perspectives, the authors review some representative well-developed interface tools. Some technologies are having far reaching impact while others are obsoleted for various reasons. Then, the authors propose a few promising approaches, including some of new directions as well as some existing techniques but with high potential for improvements. In fact, the threshold and ceiling are a common problem for many designs since easy to learn and high flexibility are almost inherently opposite, which makes the combination of low threshold and high ceiling extremely difficult. The authors spend much time on discussing future development directions since by 1999 the trends of dramatic changes in computing environment have emerged. With the spread of ubiquitous computing, traditional design guidelines for desktop computer seemed inappropriate. I am really impressed by the vision of these authors since their predictions are unbelievably accurate. Nowadays, represented by Google Now and Apple Siri, speech interfaces have become the most popular topic. Wearable devices and mobile interfaces are also revolutionizing people's daily life. The notion of "long-nose effect of innovation" is once again proved. "Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces" - The author is a distinguished scientist in Microsoft and has actually applied many of his research results to the Microsoft software products. Therefore, this paper serves more like a technical report and summarizes the innovations in User Interface of Microsoft LookOut, which is an overlaying automated services of Microsoft Outlook. The paper first reviews the trends of frontier UI research back in 1999, which is characterized by directly manipulation and automated intelligent agents. Although significant progress have been made in each field, few efforts are focused on combining the advantages of both techniques. To mostly take advantages of integrated automated services with direct manipulation interfaces, the author proposed a few tips as critical points, such as significant value-added automation, considering uncertainties, balancing service timing, cost and other factors, etc. These specific detailed guidelines are indeed playing important roles in the examples provided by the author in their product, LookOut as an enhancement add-on for Microsoft Outlook. In fact, since the authors are participating in the development of such system, the mechanism of certain functions and the underlying assumption and initiative are clearly explained. For example, the author demonstrates how to evaluate the expected utility of automated intelligent agents after text analysis. Even though the author is mainly discussing about Microsoft LookOut, it is beneficial to learn about the specific techniques in actual product. It is worth noting that most of the mechanisms are not directly visible by the users, such as the learning process and the optimization of suitable timing for notification. However, the users can feel that the agents are becoming smarter and smarter.
Manali Shimpi 23:33:24 9/27/2015
Past, present and future of User Interface Software Tools: The paper describes how the user interface tools were in early stages and how they evolved and how they further needs to evolve for future devices such as computerized pens, notepads, wall size computers etc. User interface tools minimize the amount of code a programmer needs to produce, thus allows user interface to be created quickly. Though many tools have been able to mature and catch up with an otherwise moving target, significant opportunities for improved interfaces are being lost to stagnation. The author discusses about the themes which are important in determining which tools successful. Some themes were successful where they needed to be. Threshold means how difficult it is to learn the tool and ceiling means how much can be done with it. User Interface tools have to deal with moving target problem where a user interface is created for a task but the may become obsolete. Window manager provide Programming model for drawing and screen update and accepting user input. Event language encourage mode-free style of interfaces by generating events for each user action. Interactive graphical tools allow experts to prototype interface highly tailored to their task. In component system separately written and compiled components are combined. Many tools were designed to support flexible variety of styles. The constraints were successful in designing layout of graphical elements. Automatic and model based techniques have suffered from problem of unpredictability. Some trends in the near future will contradict assumptions built into today’s tools like skill and dexterity levels of users, Non-overlapping layout or rectangular and opaque interactive components. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces: The paper reviews the principles that show promises that allow engineers to enhance human-computer interaction by coupling of automated services with direct manipulation. The innovation either focused on building machinery for sensing a user’s activity and taking automated actions or by exploring new kinds of metaphors and conventions that enhance the user’s ability to directly manipulate interfaces to access information and invoke services. Critical factors for the effective integration of automated services with direct manipulation interfaces include Developing significant value added automation, considering uncertainty about a user’s goals, considering status of a user’s attention in the timing of services, inferring ideal action in light of costs, benefits, and uncertainties, Employing dialog to resolve key uncertainties, allowing efficient direct invocation and termination, minimizing the cost of poor guesses about action and timing, scoping precision of service to match uncertainty, variation in goals, providing mechanisms for efficient agent-user collaboration to refine results, employing socially appropriate behaviors for agent-user interaction, maintaining working memory of recent interactions, continuing to learn by observing.It is showed that continuing efforts to address problems with the design of mixed-initiative user interface will yield fundamental enhancement in human computer interaction.
Chi Zhang 23:58:17 9/27/2015
Critiques on "Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools" by Chi Zhang. This paper is a survey of the interface design tools on aspects of features and functionalities. While briefly introducing the successes and failures in the history, the main content is addressed as being comprised of threshold and ceiling, path of least resistance, predictability and moving target. Threshold could be represented as the time taken to get familiar with this system, ceiling represented as maximum functionalities provided by this application. This is actually quite interesting as it points that it's not always true more functionalities brings more popularity. A great prediction was actually met in this paper, as the authors anticipated the rise of recognition-based user interfaces. At this time being, recognition-based user interfaces bring much convenience to our lives, as what fingerprint recognition, voice recognition and movement recognition technologies are doing right now. There are many interesting aspects brought by this survey paper and much novelty in the later time was inspired from this paper. ------------------------------------ Critiques on "Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces" by Chi Zhang. This paper addressed the fundamental concepts of mixed-initiative UI technologies, mainly about the challenges of this technological trend. Systematic problems were addressed in the paper, as some cases show that agents may constantly need to ask clearly about user's requests. Lockout system was then introduced by authors as a breakthrough of this sort of problems. It is used to manage schedules and meets. The authors also talked about many crucial factors for designing effective mixed initiative user interface. It's quite an insightful paper as it pointed out many significant factors of building and improving mixed-initiative user interfaces.
Vineet Raghu 0:19:04 9/28/2015
Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools As the title explains, this paper presents the state of software tools to create user interfaces in present and future platforms. At the time of writing the paper, the desktop user interface model had been the norm for over a decade, and though it provided consistency, many believed it was an unproductive occurrence for the future of user interface design. The author also discusses at depth design goals that need to be considered in the future where ubiquitous computing (computing on different devices of different standards) will become the norm. He specifically mentions the themes of low threshold and high ceiling, path of least resistance (encourage doing the right thing), predictability, and avoiding hitting moving targets. Finally, the author discusses different future computing platforms, and how future user interfaces will need to be designed to accommodate these platforms. For ubiquitous computing, he mentions that interfaces have to adapt to size constraints, that tools must be able to prototype and test actual devices quickly, and that due to the rise of computers for communication, tools need to be developed for distributed communicating devices. Most importantly, the author says that end-user programming needs to be utilized to allow flexibility for users. Overall this paper seems very accurately describe the design issues in the early 2000s. The authors accurately forecasted the rise of ubiquitous computing, and how this would dominate a lot of HCI research in the recent past. An interesting thing though is that I am not sure how much end-user programming has drastically changed in the last few years, since it appears that macros and scripting languages still seem to be the norm. Moreover, 3-dimensional interfaces are just now appearing in the mainstream market with the latest generation of phone and tablet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces This article describes how direct manipulation interfaces can be combined with automation interfaces synergistically to provide a better interface than each individual component alone. The authors first provided a comprehensive list of principles that a designer of such an interface should follow, and then they describe an implementation of such an interface called LookOut. This program consists of an automatic scheduling application that can be utilized when actively reading text that could involve an appointment or date of some sort. The program can automatically parse the currently selected text, and automatically produce an event to add to a Microsoft Outlook schedule, which the user can edit as they see fit to finalize the procedure. An interesting aspect of this is that the decision of whether or not LookOut should act to begin with can be automated as well using a probabilistic machine learning model. In addition, the time to delay asking the user for action after they have just opened an email is also probablistically modeled to achieve satisfactory automatic performance. LookOut demonstrates effectively how various fields of computer science such as AI, Machine Learning, and NLP can be synthesized to produce a very effective prototype in the field of HCI. The ideals given by this program appear to be a sound way to merge automation and direct manipulation interfaces, and though this has not been a huge aspect of traditional computing, the effects of these types of interfaces are clearly seen in the mobile computing environment with things like Cortana and Siri.
Long Nguyen 0:36:45 9/28/2015
Read on Principles of Mix-Initiative User Interfaes: The paper presents the idea of mixing two metarphors in HCI: the first is to develop interface agent automatically guessing user's intention and take action; while the second metaphor is to enhance user's ablity in human-machine interaction by letting user directly manipulate interfaces and invoke services. I believe the main contribution of this paper is the analysis of critical factors for effective intergration, which includes 12 main factors. The most noticable factors talk about how to deal with uncertain and poor guesses of automated agent to minimize the cost and also increase effeciency and comfortable for user. The rest of the paper presents an implementation of mixed UI, called Lookout project which help user to automatically add schedule to his calender based on the content of received email. However I think the idea of guessing user's intention is still very difficult, which is one of the reason why I do not see any implementatons of this application in current time. Read on Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools: The paper illustrates the art of state of user interface tools, coming from the past to the present the paper was written, which includes: event language, interactive graphical tools, component systems, scripting language, hypertext, object-oriented programming. The analysis for past tools was simple, just to give readers idea of what the tools were and how they impacted on user interface application and research area. The part I like the most in this paper is the third part, the "future prospects and visions". Author did a great job analyzing the upcoming needs of user's needs and technology innovation to provide some guesses to the future, which were quite accurate: computers becoming a commodity, ubiquitous computing, recoginition-based user interfaces, three-dimensional technologies and end-user programming, customization, and scripting
Zinan Zhang 1:02:36 9/28/2015
1. For Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces--------------- The paper mainly talks about some principles about designing the user interfaces based on the mixed-initiative. Firstly, the paper talks about the challenge for designing the user interfaces with mixed-initiative. Then it takes the Microsoft's outlook as an example to illustrate some of his ideas. And finally it uses some example from lookout system to illustrate his design principles. Among all the contents of the paper, what I am most interested in is the Support Vector Machine. That is because I have ever tried to learn about it and use in my project. During my undergraduate final project, the Support Vector Machine is a quite good tool for me to deal with the thousands of data. By study from the example data, the computer can leaned how to classify the data it dealing with and return the result to the user, which is so convenient for the user. As in the paper, the SVM is also used for classifying the data for making decisions about actions. The paper was published in 1999, and the method of SVM is still useful till to now. It shows how good the SVM are.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. For Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools---------------- The paper mainly talks about the user interface software tools. Firstly, it reviews the past tools. Both of the success and failure in past user interface tools are mentioned in the paper and evaluated as well. I have to say that it is hard to believe that this is a paper published in 1999. There are lots of predicts about the future user interface software tools. And what surprises me is that most of the prediction really comes to true now. For example, the recognition-based user interface chapter mentions that there will be gesture included in future. And now, many website explorer, allows the users use gesture to operate the program. It can be vividly illustrated by the example of the IE. When the users look through a website with IE, users can close the current page by clicking on the mouse and write a big “L” on the screen. And the users can also refresh the current page with writing a big “circle” on the screen, which is extremely convenient for the users and timesaving. Then I find that these series of prediction is not created by accident. Their appearance is because the authors summarize the past tool's deficiency. After reading the past tools evaluated in the first part of the paper, we can understand why the authors get the predictions and why they are reasonable.
Lei Zhao 1:21:37 9/28/2015
paper 1: This paper investigates the features and functions of some most frequently used interface design tools. This paper first discusses the success and failure points of the previous interface design tools. Some major aspects discussed in this paper includes: 1) there is a threshold for the tool to measure if it requires too much effort to learn how to use it. 2) how much the tool can provide to the user. 3) how the tool can satisfy the user's goal which is not stable. At the end of the paper, the author give a prediction that in the future, interfaces based on recognition will be more attractive. ============================paper 2: This paper disscusses some modern topics of building mixed initiative user interfaces with an emphasis on design challenges. A method called Lockout is proposed in this paper to provide the user a more efficient way to collaborate with computers. At the same time, the paper also propose 12 principles for mixed-initiative UI. In my opinion, These principles are used to solve the problems by using the agents that can guess what the user actuall y needs. In my opinion, this paper gives a very directive guide to design successful applications. For instance, some modern interfaces have alread used the se features, such as youtube which can recommend vedios that the system guesses the user may be interested in.
Shijia Liu 1:34:53 9/28/2015
Section1: Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools. Nowadays, new significant increasing technical changes are impact our life to a large extent. Like the past 40 years, some interface technique were also changes our current life by now. And there are a host of new style interface devices emerged, in addition, the increased connectivity of computers are also have profound effect on the user interface to computers. This article mainly talking about in 3 parts: 1.the history of successes and failures of user interface software tool research to provide a context for future developments;2.the implications on tools of the impending changes; 3. the requirements for the underlying operating system to support these tools. Above that, this paper discussed that how to adjust whether the tools is worked or not, and the main point which determine for that. Furthermore, we can see some new stuff and techniques it seems like works but still have several defect to overcome. And last we looked ahead the future interface situation and the direction of its developing. It still be challenge and have a host of opportunity for the user interface tool in the future. Section 2:Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces From the article we can see there are two school of the researchers about where opportunities lay for innovating in HCI.One of researchers thought that focus on the development and application of new kinds of automated services Other researchers have suggested that effort focused on automation might be better expended on exploring new kinds of metaphors and conventions that enhance a user’s ability to directly manipulate interfaces to access information and invoke services. Our target is avoid the limit of the design of human-computers interface and we not only focus on which about the advantage or disadvantage, we should consider both of the properties. According the experiments and the principles we reviewed them and on the key challenges and opportunities for building mixed-initiative user interfaces—interfaces. At first we showed a host of principles for designing mixed initiative user interfaces that address systematic problems with the use of agents that may often have to guess about a user’s needs. Then, we pay attention to the path for managing the unsure points that agents may have about the attentions from the users. And last we picked and discussed the difficult challenges and promising opportunities for improving human–computer interaction with direct manipulation. We think it will be a right direction that continuing efforts to address problems with the design of mixed-initiative user interfaces.
Priyanka Walke 2:09:04 9/28/2015
Reading Critique on Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools This paper mentions about the various trends that exist in the user interface research areas till date. It takes into consideration, the user interface tools invented in the past and discusses about the reasons and concepts that led to the success or failure of those respective tools. The author states that in the current situation has a remarkable diversity and innovation in case of tools in comparison to that of the user interfaces which appear to be similar in almost all applications. He also mentions that the standards for user interfaces were already formed before this paper was written and he is definitely pointing out the flaws in this standardization as it stagnates them while discussing about the changes deserved by the upcoming future generations of user interfaces. He also points out that all these suggested changes apply to the ubiquitous computing devices, end-user customizations and gesture & speech recognition. The paper mentions problems regarding the lack of innovation in user interfaces, the moving target problem which the tools have to catch up with, due to the changes in the design paradigms which in turn change the requirements. The author also stresses upon the point that the current technology is the result of the research that started in the 80’s and 90’s and hence, we have to continue the research in order to deliver such high quality user interfaces in the future. The key to achieve this to keep a lower learning curve along with a increased functionality. This is however difficult to achieve as more achievement of functionality results in much complicated programming and research, which is definitely an irreversible trend. Such kind of limitations exist in much of the implementations which try leveraging the complexity which in turn increases them thereby leading to an unpredictable situation. Thus the paper can be summarized by saying that it discussed different approaches that have been chosen by researchers and their consequences in terms of success or failure of those technologies. Even those approaches that have failed can be of importance for avoiding those mistakes in the upcoming research. The author covers a broader aspect of the ongoing researches which makes it clear to choose a specific area of interest. He stresses on the fact that it’s the years of research that has resulted into the current technological success and hence it is definitely necessary to make use of the previous research, correct the facts as per today's need and explore it. Reading Critique on Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interface This paper discusses about the use of direct manipulation interfaces and intelligent agents and puts forth the idea of a mixed user initiative by User Interface Automation. The paper states that till date the research has always been done on either the intelligent agents or the direct manipulation interfaces but never on both of them together in combination. Hence, in order to try out a new way, the author created a new application named ‘LookOut’ to bring about a combination of these 2 areas of research. This application has some noteworthy uses and it also respects the existing set of interface and also incorporates the user activities. The main idea behind this was to design an automated system as per the user’s preferences. However, it is a challenging task to complete as human behaviour is absolutely erratic and hence it’s highly impossible to cover all possible scenarios. The author intends at urging us to broaden the horizons of research. The main topic of concern here being the intelligent agents, we can definitely work towards using it here. We can start by creating self-redesigning interfaces that work by adapting to the usage and apply the interface that suits the most. Hence, there is definitely a lot to explore. Also the applications that will be designed need a lot of ease of use and adaptation.
Samanvoy Panati 3:21:26 9/28/2015
Critique 1: Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools User Interface software tools are used for designing and implementing interfaces. This paper talks about the tools developed in the past, their successes and failures. Then it discusses about possible future enhancements and research. User interface tools help in reducing the amount of code that programmers need while they are creating interface and so, in turn, helps to create the interface very quickly. Some important factors are given, for the evaluation of interfaces, from the past successes and failures. An ideal interface tool should have low threshold and high ceiling. One of the drawbacks is that the interfaces keep on changing with the development of new kinds of diseases. The paper talks about the features which worked out in the past and then about the promising approaches that are not so accepted. In future, there will be many improvements in the technology of user interfaces. The reasons for that are that the hardware is becoming cheaper and the computer can be used to perform different types of computations. The computers are not traditional desktops anymore. We have smart phones, tablets, Personal Digital Assistants, computers embedded in our daily life electronics. Their inputs outputs and usages differ. So they need different output interfaces. User interface tools should be made so that prototypes can be developed rapidly. Our input is not only text based now. We have pattern based input like gesture, speech recognition input and other kinds. The interface tools should be developed such that it takes into consideration all the above mentioned details. The flexibility to make any changes must be given to user because different users may need slightly different interfaces. Finally, the paper explains about the operating system issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Critique 2: Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces This paper addresses a debate between User Interface concentrating on direct manipulation and automated interfaces. The research has been done either in intelligent agents or direct manipulation agents. The author creates a new application called LookOut to merge these two approaches. A bulk of principles for this mixed User interface is provided which concentrate on the definition of deign aspects that a designer needs to consider during the development process. LookOut is designed to work in different modes according to the help needed by the user. It can gather information through mails, user’s voice tone and words. It uses information from classification algorithms and take decisions for the user. The designers developed an attention tracking facility in order to improve the ability of LookOut to take decisions. LookOut is able to identify the user’s needs with a high success rate through the interactions and behavioral patterns. Finally, LookOut is the software obtained by combining direct manipulation software with automation.
Jesse Davis 4:08:59 9/28/2015
Past, Present, and Future of User Interface Software Tools This paper is important because it focuses on the pioneering of newer technology (new back then at least, it commented on the rise of PDAs, which are nowadays basically our cell phones), while also acknowledging our lack of innovation when it comes to UI due to users unwillingness to accept UIs that may be more efficient, but are too deviant from the norm. This paper also does an excellent job of presenting the information from past, present, and observing the future in a well-organized manner that is friendly to the reader. Seems like a staple paper for HCI that I’ll be bookmarking for future re-reading. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces This papers goes on to discuss and analyze the techniques for developing mixed-initiative user interfaces. In the beginning of the paper they detail some very interesting critical principles for mixed-initiative UI with the first few being pretty obvious and the latter ones being more abstract and insightful. For the actual analysis and experimentation part of the paper they have an application called LookOut that can be set to fully manual or can be used with varying degrees of automation. Using the automation, they guesstimate scheduling based on e-mail text. The key behind this study is to see the usefulness behind the automation and measure to what degree the automation should be done. It is an overall interesting paper and I would like to read more into these types of studies and see additional works from the authors.
Darshan Balakrishna Shetty 7:51:24 9/28/2015
Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools : As the name of the paper suggests the author talks about the past and the present user interfaces and where the design of user interface is heading. The paper is about the trends in the user interface design and research areas. It talks about the norms of user interface software tools, how it should build and the things to keep in mind while designing. It is very important while designing the user interface to know about the history of a design how the interface has evolved and why has it evolved. What were the contributions of the designers and how much the users have contributed. At the end of it, it is the users who makes the design a success or failure. The author discusses about the progress of the user interface software tool kits. How important the software toolkit has been which can limit the progress of the user interface design. Based upon the past and the present the author tries predicting the future designs and challenges in user interface design and the software tool kits supporting it. Even though the paper was written in 2000 well most of the things discussed such as ubiquitous computing, end user customizations, gesture recognition, speech recognition, 3D applications are where the user interface is heading and we can see these now. The authors mainly focus on the following aspects: threshold and ceiling, path of least resistance, predictability and moving target. The threshold is the learning curve for getting used to the software tool. If the tool is not intuitive and takes users a long time to learn, the tool will fail. The ceiling means the maximum function the tool can provide to the user. The paper also discusses about the problems and challenges such as the moving target problem which is inevitable, as the design paradigms changes, so does the requirements i.e., by the time software solves an existing problem which could be obsolete. But the author is correct in recognizing the future trends in user interface design like gesture and voice recognition, 3D applications. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces: This paper mainly talks about and exposes the readers to mixed-initiative user interface and how to design such interfaces. The mixed-initiative user interfaces are the interfaces which can learn by itself based on the user's behaviour and continuously learns and enhances the interface experience with respect to the user. The author explains this using appropriate example projects as well. The author tries to convey that a stable design may not be an optimal design. The interface developers need to design an interface that can suit most of the user base. Thus the self learning interface can cater the needs of individual users by learning about the user behaviour and on how the user uses the interface. The sheds light on few things to keep in mind while designing such self learning user interface. We can see nowadays the user interface design is heading in that direction a simple example would be our Google search engine which customizes the search results based on the user behaviour, past searches learning on the interests of the user which provides meaningful search results for the user. Both Google and Apple to name some are working on various aspects of self learning interfaces which can be borrowed in a lot services which are provided by these companies. All in all paper gives a base to understand the self learning interfaces.
Zihao Zhao 7:56:32 9/28/2015
The first article “Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools” is a paper with a large amount of information. I am astonished to get the notion that computer language is a kind of human interface software tool. The paper tells us that since the main stream of windows metaphor in the past tens of years, tools have been matured. And in the future the user interface design will be radically changed because the rise of ubiquitous imputing and recognition based user interfaces which has different input and output hardware. I cannot agree more with the point of the author. Take the Course MIRROR project as an example, the developer should at least develop 2 versions of the program one in android platform and one deployed on the World Wide Web. And even more trivial things will happen if most of the users are using IOS platform. This may cause the repetitive workload and largely minimize the efficiency of the programer. The best solution on the user interface tool is to make a standard that we should only develop one version of the program and it can be run in different platform. As the development of the ubiquitous computing, different platform will arise, and it is really important to make that change for the tools. The threshold and ceiling in evaluating tools are quite useful. The lower threshold, the more easily the user will take use of it, efficiency is very important nowadays, if I have to learn a new programming language before I can pass over the threshold of the tool to take advantage of it, I would probably give up and to search for another convenient way to finish the job.————————————————————————————————————————- The second paper “Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces” mainly introduces a notion that combines the debates whether it is better to develop interface “agents” or it is better to directly manipulate interfaces to access information and invoke services. And an software OutLook has been developed taking the advantages of both sides. The mixed-intuitive user interface OutLook can help users automatically set the calendar by the indications of users. It takes people’s history of choices into account and helped users to make a calendar. I think this is a semi-agent which is a very good idea. Since the system which joined by human beings will be much more intelligent than a purely machine. Although with some training data sets, a computer can learn most of human’s intuition, but it may sometimes cause mistakes. However, with the small effort of the participation of human, the risk of fall into a mistake will be largely minimized. Besides OutLook, many of the applications nowadays implement the mixed-initiative user interfaces. Such as Siri, Siri can process the speech of human and then process it into a command to process, if it is not sure about the information given by the users, it will require more speeches from the user. The topic in today’s group meeting “Clinical Document Reviewing Assistant” also implement the mixed-initiative notion. The system gives the judgement of certain diagnosis to the doctor as an suggestion and also require the feedback from the doctor about the real judgment and certain keywords. I think the principle of mixed-initiative user interfaces will be the main stream of the future software design.
Sudeepthi Manukonda 8:52:03 9/28/2015
Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools is a paper written trying to to give the history of the software tools that were used in developing user interfaces. Software tools are the tools that are used in developing any particular software. Sometimes these lead to successes and sometimes they don’t. It is important to discuss both as both success and failures have important points to learn from. We are at the stage where there will be tonnes of new user interfaces hat will emerge. These user interfaces can range from a personal digital assistants to wall-size computers. The past research which dates back to almost a couple of decades ago, is very important to be studied to know the evolution of human computer interfaces and the devices. The complexity in trying to use the devices has increased over the time and the size of the device has become increasingly small. While evaluating there should always be some criteria that should be compared. These criteria includes the part of the user interface that was addressed, the difficulty faced in learning to use the system, the accuracy of the output, the resistance that the interface faces, the predictability, etc. There have been amazing contributions made by the user interface researches. These are window manager and toolkits, event languages, interactive graphic tools, component systems, scripting languages, hypertext, and OOPs programming. While these have been the successes there have been certain failures also. The failures are, Management Systems, formal language tools, constraints and model based and automatic techniques. The future scope of human computer interface is that computers have to become a commodity. The size of the computer will be accessible and easy to use in one hand. Also, the movements, the animation, the graphics will all be very smooth. The other feature is Ubiquitous Computing. This helps communication between devices very easy. the user dent have to think twice before working on the same project from a different device. It is evident that there is a lot of research work that is going on in these fields relating to computer interface. There is more study going on to improve and create a breakthrough further. The immediate area of interest is trying to provide rich context of information about the user, the devices and the applications’s state. This is further help the data and device communication. The second paper “Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces” is also dealing about the user interface devices and the evolution mechanisms. Humans are innate in their understanding the usage of certain objects or tools in the real life. So the main objective of any interface developer is to create something that is close to the reality. To achieve this some key factors have to be considered for effective integration of automated services with direct manipulation. They are developing significant value added automations, considering uncertainty about users goals, employing dialog to resolve key uncertainties, allowing efficient direct invocation and termination, etc. All these factors aim at developing a software that is close to direct manipulation. The paper spends a great deal in expanding about each topic in detail and talking about its importance in the research work. The research work also opens up for a wire range of opportunities for the future for building mixed-initiative user interface. Mixed initiate user interface systems are closely related to the dialog systems which provide efficient means of communication between the user and the embedded system. The above mentioned principles are very important in developing the user interface. Then there are methods too for managing the uncertainties that agents may have about users’ goals. All these together give a greater insight into the background work that is required to develop any user interface.
Mahbaneh Eshaghzadeh Torbati 8:54:09 9/28/2015
(Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools) This writing mainly discussed the different tools that people desgined in computer science for user interface software in history. Moreover, the writer points out some issues should be concered about in the future. This paper is important since it not only point the history of the development of software tools, but also point out the issues that developers need to care about in the future. When introducing the tools that have already existed, the writer did some experiments to see if it is easy to learn how to use and how much functions that the system can bring to the user. From the analysis we can get a good idea about if the tool is the most suitable one for some certain task so that developers can easily make appropriate software for client. Also the tips about the future development of user interface software tools attract our attention to reconsider the tools that have already been developed to see if they needed to be modified in the future. The paper is written in 1999. After about 15 years’ development of user interface software tools, we can see some issues about tools that the author mentioned have showed in nowadays. The author says that the average level of users’ skills on using computer is changing. Since developers need to make sure that most people can use the interface easily, they need to think about the interface for average people. If the average skills that normal people have changed, the interface will not be the appropriate one anymore so that constant changing the interface will be important part for the development. Nowadays, lots of elderly people start to use smart phones. Since the old version smart phone interface is designed for people that are skilled, it may not be suitable for elderly people, since they have less skill on using smart phone so that the interface should be changed. Apple did a good job on that. The early version iOS is not so easy to use for people who need big font and who are not good at typing since during that time people who use it don’t care too much about this. Apple saw this change and added a lot of features to help people who are hard to see the words on the small screen. Also apple bring in the voice-recognizing interface to help people to directly transfer voice to sentences. I believe that in the future, the average using skill of users will keep changing. Focusing on the change will be very important for every interface designer and developer. Critique for Principles of Mixed-Initiative User interfaces. Basically, this paper talked about how to design an interface that includes self-learning ability on user’s behavior to enhance the interface itself. The author used a project related to it as example to show how self-learning can enhance the interface. This is a great paper, based on my understanding. Since interface developers need to design an interface that suitable for most users. Stable design may not be the optimal solution. Thus it will be better to make a self-learning and self-modifying interface that can be suitable for different kinds of people. But the way to achieve something like this will be hard. From this paper, developer can learned the factors that may need to consider when they are developing a “smart” interface. Also I believe that the example in the paper give people the innovation to try to think about how to make a self-learning interface. In nowadays, people are trying to achieve something like this. People added self-learning ability into input method. It learns people’s typing habit so that they can predict what people want to type by just analyzing several letters they input. Apple use people’s record of location to predict where is home so that they can give suggestions that how it will take to go home at this time. I think in the future there will be more interface that are smart showed in the market to improve people operation on computers.