Hcse pres

484 views
444 views

Published on

Published in: Travel, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
484
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
134
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Hcse pres

  1. 1. A  Domain  Specific  Language  for   Contextual  Design   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   Balbir  Barn  and  Tony  Clark   Middlesex  University   b.barn@acm.org  
  2. 2. Structure  of  the  talk  •  IntroducMon  •  User  centred  design  and  Model  driven  development  •  MoMvaMon:   –   Experiences  of  UCD  –  Case  study  outcomes   –  The  case  for  modelling  in  UCD  •  The  Central  quesMon  •  Contextual  Design  •  A  model  driven  language  engineering  approach  •  A  DSL  for  Contextual  Design  •  Concluding  remarks  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   2  
  3. 3. In  a  nutshell  •  UCD  processes  and  arMfacts  are  ambiguous   and  lack  precision.  Even  the  the  more  “model”   based  methods  do  not  have  sufficient   semanMcs.    •  A  model  driven  approach  to  language  design  is   proposed  and  Contextual  design  models  such   as  “Cultural  Models”  are  given  a  language   treatment  to  support  the  development  of   bespoke  tools.    10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   3  
  4. 4. User  centred  design  and  Model  driven    •  UCD   development   –  Users  as  equal  partners  in  the  design  process  -­‐  but  involving  users  can  present   problems   –  HCI  and  SE:  A  cultural  gap  •  SE  pracMce  evolving  towards  model  driven  development   (MDD)   –  MDD  –  offers  greater  affordance  to  address  representaMon  gap  between   understanding  and  implementaMon     –  a  greater  focus  on  precision   –  Support  for  mulMple  viewpoints  and  transformaMons  between  viewpoints  •  RecogniMon  of  tension  between:   –  Lack  of  precision  of  UCD  one  side   –  and  alienaMon  of  users  in  MDD  approaches  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   4  
  5. 5. MoMvaMon  •  A  recent  experience  with  UCD:  The  Remora   project  •  Key  problems  arising  from  UCD  •  Could  model  driven  approaches  help?  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   5  
  6. 6. MoMvaMng  case  study:  Remora  •  Aims   –  to  provide  mobile  so_ware   applicaMons  to  support  work-­‐based   learning  and  assessment  for  social   workers  “in  the  wild”  •  ObjecMves   –  Build  so_ware  tools  that  students   and  social  workers  want  and  need    -­‐   using  a  user-­‐centred  approach  to   elicit  requirements   •  Experiences  with  UCD   –  Evaluate  tools  and  their  usage  to   •  MulM-­‐disciplinary  team,  MulMple   provide  key  knowledge  to  inform   development  locaMons   JISC  E-­‐Learning  Strategy   •  MulMple  approaches  to  development   •  Move  towards  a  co-­‐design  methodology  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   6  
  7. 7. Key  problems  •  User  types   –  An  applicaMon  that  goes  across  mulMple  device  types  and  has  different  user  types  of  differing   experience  •  Users  as  designers   –  Users  can  have  important  and  relevant  ideas  but  they  are  not  designers  •  New  technologies   –  Many  new  emerging  technologies  –  users  do  not  have  knowledge  to  understand  the  enMre  ecology  of   technology  •  Work  environments   –  Limited  knowledge  at  management  level   –  Work  pressures  •  Deployment  risk   –  Fear  of  coping  with  technology   –  The  profession  of  Social  Work  is  high  risk   –  PrecauMonary  risk  –  data  security.  •  User  confusion  of  what  they  want  and  what  they  need  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   7  
  8. 8. A  model  driven  language  engineering   approach  •  Model  driven  principles  •  Language  definiMon   –  Concrete  syntax   –  Abstract  syntax   –  SemanMc  domain   –  Mappings  (syntax,  semanMcs)  •  Meta  modelling  language   –  For  the  abstract  language  –  it  can  be  UML.  •  Tooling   10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   8  
  9. 9. Contextual  Design  •  Contextual  Design  (Beyer  and  Holzblaj  2001)   –  Rich  in  UCD  and  has  affinity  with  SE  approaches  •  Focus  on  arMfacts,  where  and  how  work  is   done;  intuiMve  elements  of  the  environment.  •  Subset  of  key  models  include:   –  ArMfact  model,  Flow  Model,  Sequence  Model  and  Cultural   Model  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   9  
  10. 10. SemanMcs  of  Cultural  Models  •  Arrow  sizes,   direcMons  •  Size  of  ellipses  •  What  does  an   overlap  mean?  •  Requires  human   analysis  •  Issues  of   interpretaMon   between  users  and   designers  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   10  
  11. 11. A  case  for  modelling  UCD  •  UCD  is  strong  on  user  engagement  but  the  arMfacts   cannot  be  easily  transformed  to  support  mulMple   viewpoints   –  Design  slicing  •  Model  based  ArMfacts  make  transformaMons  between   viewpoints  possible   –  In  design  and  design-­‐implementaMon   Making  SE  notaMons  more  UCD   UCD   SE   Making  UCD  more  SE  oriented  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   11  
  12. 12. A  DSL  for  Contextual  Design  •  Abstract  Syntax   –  The  cornerstone  of  a  language  definiMon   –  We  define  an  abstract  syntax  for  the  main  models  in  the   CD  modelling  language   •  Flow  models   •  ArMfact  models  (equivalent  to  class  models  in  UML  so   not  considered  further)   •  Cultural  models   •  Sequence  models  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   12  
  13. 13. Abstract  Syntax:  Flow  Model  •  Model  is  the  top-­‐level  container    •  A  Model  consists  of  a  collecMon  of  roles  with  flows  between  them  •  Each  flow  represents  an  interacMon  between  roles  and  is  labelled   with  the  event  generated  by  it,  the  arMfacts  involved.  •  Well-­‐formedness:  every  role  must  have  a  unique  name    10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   13  
  14. 14. Abstract  Syntax:  Cultural  Model  •  Each  Influence  has  a  Force  associated  with  it  (weak  to  strong)  •  Each  role  manages  a  collecMon  of  personal  beliefs  (Values)  •  An  Influence  together  with  its  Force  defines  a  condiMon  which  must  be   met  by  any  valid  instance  of  Values  associated  with  an  influenced  Role.  •  Well-­‐formedness:  Influence:  the  set  of  variable  names  in  the  condi8on   must  be  a  subset  of  the  value  type  names  associated  with  the  belief   values  of  an  influenced  role.    10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   14  
  15. 15. Abstract  Syntax:  Sequence  Model  •  Each  Role  has  an  Interface  of   AcMviMes.  •  Each  AcMvity  has  a  number  of   alternaMve  step  assemblies  (Steps)   that  reflect  the  opMons  that  an   individual  performs  in  response  to   an  event.  •  Each  individual  step  processes   arMfacts  and  must  saMsfy  a   collecMon  of  belief  values.  •  The  idea  is  that  a  step  cannot  be   performed  unless  it  is  consistent   with  the  beliefs  of  an  individual.  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   15  
  16. 16. Concrete  Syntax  •  The  complete  abstract  syntax  for  CD  is  large  so  we  focus  on  the  Cultural   Forces  model  as  it  addresses  areas  of  the  systems  design  process  not   normally  addressed.  •  TranslaMon  into  GOPRR  meta  modelling  syntax  for  MetaEdit+.  •  The  tool  supports  the  creaMon  of  a  concrete  syntax  –  the  notaMons  and   graphical  elements  and  their  binding  to  the  GOPRR  equivalent  of  the   abstract  syntax.   Abstract  Syntax   GOPRR  abstract   GOPRR  concrete   Tool  Instance   (UML)   syntax   syntax   MetaEdit+  Environment   models   CIM/PIM   PSM   Problem  Domain  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   16  
  17. 17. Concrete  Syntax  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   17  
  18. 18. Modeling  Cultural  Forces  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   18  
  19. 19. Concluding  remarks  •  Our  moMvaMng  example  illustrated  the  problem  that  arises   when  core  arMfacts  from  the  UCD  process  do  not  readily   translate  to  the  so_ware  engineering  community  •  Need  to  converge  on  a  science  of  design   –  How  can  outputs  from  UCD  be  modeled  so  that  they  can  be  integrated   with  SE  pracMce  •  CD  appears  to  be  useful  bridging  methodology   –  But  CD  has  an  informal  semanMcs  –  this  limits  tooling  opportuniMes  •  We  have  described  CD  can  be  given  a  formal  syntax  and  we   have  outlined  semanMcs  for  the  method  •  Issues  of  evaluaMon  –  will  UCD  experts  use  such  tools?  10/12/10   HCSE  2010,  Reykjavik,  Iceland   19  

×