Fredy Cuenca
Kris Luyten
ABSTRACT
The present paper describes an empirical user study intended to compare the programming efficiency of our proposed domain-specific language versus a mainstream event language when it comes to modify multimodal interactions. By concerted use of observations, interviews, and standardized questionnaires, we managed to measure the completion rates, completion time, code testing effort, and perceived difficulty of the programming tasks along with the perceived usability and perceived learnability of the tool supporting our proposed language. Based on this experience, we propose some guidelines for designing comparative user studies of programming languages. The paper also discusses the considerations we took into account when designing a multimodal interaction description language that intends to be well regarded by its users.
- M. Beaudouin-Lafon. User interface management systems: Present and future. In From object modelling to advanced visual communication, pages 197–223. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
- R. Bolt. Put-that-there: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH’ 80. ACM, 1980. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Brooke. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4–7, 1996.Google Scholar
- J. Coutaz, L. Nigay, D. Salber, A. Blandford, J. May, and R. M. Young. Four easy pieces for assessing the usability of multimodal interaction: the care properties. In InterAct, volume 95, pages 115–120, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Cuenca, J. Van der Bergh, K. Luyten, and K. Coninx. A domainspecific textual language for rapid prototyping of multimodal interactive systems. In Proc. of EICS’14. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Cuenca, J. Van den Bergh, K. Luyten, and K. Coninx. Hasselt uims: a tool for describing multimodal interactions with composite events. In Proc. of EICS’15. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. De Boeck, D. Vanacken, C. Raymaekers, and K. Coninx. High level modeling of multimodal interaction techniques using NiMMiT. Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, 4(2), 2007.Google Scholar
- B. Dumas, B. Signer, and D. Lalanne. A graphical editor for the smuiml multimodal user interaction description language. Science of Computer Programming, 86:30–42, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Hoste, B. Dumas, and B. Signer. Mudra: a unified multimodal interaction framework. In Proc. of ICMI’11, pages 97–104. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Kin, B. Hartmann, T. DeRose, and M. Agrawala. Proton++: a customizable declarative multitouch framework. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST’12), pages 477–486, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Lewis and J. Sauro. The factor structure of the system usability scale. In Human Centered Design, pages 94–103. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Myers, S. E. Hudson, and R. Pausch. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(1):3–28, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Navarre, P. Palanque, J.-F. Ladry, and E. Barboni. ICOs: A Model-Based User Interface Description Technique dedicated to Interactive Systems Addressing Usability, Reliability and Scalability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16 (4), 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Olsen Jr. Mike: the menu interaction kontrol environment. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 5(4):318–344, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Olsen Jr. Larger issues in user interface management. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 21(2):134–137, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Olsen Jr. A programming language basis for user interface. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, volume 20, pages 171–176. ACM, 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Olsen Jr and E. P. Dempsey. Syngraph: A graphical user interface generator. In ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, volume 17, pages 43–50. ACM, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Oney, B. Myers, and J. Brandt. Interstate: Interaction-oriented language primitives for expressing gui behavior. In Proc. of UIST’14. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sauro and J. S. Dumas. Comparison of three one-question, posttask usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1599–1608. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sauro and E. Kindlund. How long should a task take? identifying specification limits for task times in usability tests. In Proceeding of the Human Computer Interaction International Conference (HCII 2005), Las Vegas, USA, 2005.Google Scholar
- M. Serrano, D. Juras, and L. Nigay. A three-dimensional characterization space of software components for rapidly developing multimodal interfaces. In Proc. of ICMI’08, pages 149–156. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- A user study for comparing the programming efficiency of modifying executable multimodal interaction descriptions: a domain-specific language versus equivalent event-callback code
Recommendations
A domain-specific textual language for rapid prototyping of multimodal interactive systems
EICS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systemsThere are currently toolkits that allow the specification of executable multimodal human-machine interaction models. Some provide domain-specific visual languages with which a broad range of interactions can be modeled but at the expense of bulky ...
A domain-specific language for building self-optimizing AST interpreters
GPCE '14Self-optimizing AST interpreters dynamically adapt to the provided input for faster execution. This adaptation includes initial tests of the input, changes to AST nodes, and insertion of guards that ensure assumptions still hold. Such specialization ...
Choosing a Programming Language
There's no language suitable for all tasks, and there probably won't ever be one. When choosing a programming language, you have to balance programmer productivity, maintainability, efficiency, portability, tool support, and software and hardware ...
Comments