Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [usage-centered] UCD vs. XP

Expand Messages
  • Mark Collins-Cope
    Hi Tony, ... But this goes against the fundamental ethos of XP, which is that you don t do any big design up front , everything is done on a per increment
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 26 3:28 AM
      Hi Tony,

      > At least in XP, the customer is taking a look at every iteration. Now,
      > sometimes the customer is not the end user, but often they are. In any case,
      > neither a customer nor and end user is going to have much patience with a UI
      > that is constantly changing. If we come up with an acceptable way to combine
      > UCD with XP, the combination must provide a fairly stable UI to be
      > introduced in the first iteration.
      > ..tony..

      But this goes against the fundamental ethos of XP, which is that you don't do
      any "big design up front", everything is done on a per increment basis -
      including analysing user/customer requirements. By the way, I'm not arguing for
      or against XP here, merely stating an observation and a seeming contradiction
      in the two approaches.

      A related question for Larry here: in reality, all projects go through some
      form of iteration, even if only in a "maintenance" phase. What approaches to UI
      modification have you seen being adopted to deal with this?


      Mark Collins-Cope
      |Voice: +44 (0)20 8579 7900 Fax: +44 (0)20 8579 9200|
      |Mobile:+44 (0)777 163 6882 Email: markcc@... |
      |Post: 17-19 The Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2NH, UK |
      |RATIO: OO Training Tools Consultancy Recruitment |
      |Training: C++, Java, EJBs, CBD, UML, OOAD, XP, XML, |
      |See ObjectiveView technical journal: www.ratio.co.uk |
    • Nuno J. Nunes
      on 30/04/01 08:40, Hallvard Trtteberg at hal@idi.ntnu.no wrote: Hallvard, ... I m familiar with Paternò s interactors. That approach is very close to the
      Message 44 of 44 , Apr 30, 2001
        on 30/04/01 08:40, Hallvard Trtteberg at hal@... wrote:


        > The abstraction is close to the "York/Piza" interactors, which in short
        > introduces a basic UI building block called "interactor" which mediates
        > information in two directions, user to system and system to user, through
        > four "gates". In my notation, the interactor is a rectangular box with
        > title, triangular gates and a resource interface. I've introduced functions
        > and merged these with gates, to provide domain specific computations.
        > Interactors are put together a bit like lego-bricks, by connecting the gates
        > and can be nested into a hierarchical graph, similar to a process network. I
        > formalise part of this using Statecharts, while the process algebra LOTOS
        > has been used by others. If anyone is particularly interested, I can send
        > him/her parts of my thesis, where this is discussed in relation to concrete
        > interface elements.

        I'm familiar with Paternò's interactors. That approach is very close to the
        model-based tradition, which was popular years ago but failed to gain
        widespread support mainly because model-based environments (including
        back-to-back automatic generation) never proved to be effective in practice.

        I'm not saying this approach is wrong or flawed, it surely is sound from a
        theoretical perspective. The main problem is that "pure" model-based
        approaches (in the sense that they attempt to fully automate the UID
        process) have not proved to be flexible enough for modern UIs. There are
        other successful examples of automatic generation techniques, mainly the web
        - where UIs described in markup are rendered in different platforms.
        However, those successful examples are very limited in terms of the extent
        to which they support the UID process.

        Times are changing though. Today we're moving away from the stable desktop
        paradigm and there is an increasing number of target platforms that differ
        substantially in terms of the devices we use to interact, and the related
        interaction styles and techniques.

        My point is that model-based techniques will inevitably come into play
        again. It will be very difficult to deploy software systems over a series of
        different platforms (just think of desktop, web, palm, cellular phone, and
        interactive TV) without effective model-based techniques. It's not a matter
        of whether we like them or not... We just can't cope with the increasing
        complexity without model-based approaches.

        > I want this to be a practical tool and have experimented with a runtime
        > system for this. I'm also working on a mapping to UML through stereotypes,
        > which I guess you're particularly interested in.

        Sounds interesting... Can you send more info on that UML adaptation? Is the
        runtime environment available?

        > I like to call the UID patters, i.e. both user interface and design. If we
        > omit "design" these may wrongly regarded as software patterns.

        I prefer a different distinction:
        Software patterns - all patterns that have to do with software
        Design patterns - patterns that have to do with OO design
        Analysis patterns - same for OO analysis
        UI patterns - patterns that have to do with UIs - interaction patterns,
        UID patterns, etc. are different classes of UI patterns.

        Nuno Jardim Nunes
        University of Madeira - Teaching Assistant
        Mathematics Dep. - Computer Science Unit
        phone: +351 291 705160 (direct) 705150 (secretary)
        fax: +351 291 705199
        URL: http://math.uma.pt/njn/
        Address: Campus Universitário da Penteada
        9000 - Funchal - Portugal
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.