skip to main content
research-article

Analysing and Demonstrating Tool-Supported Customizable Task Notations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 June 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

When task descriptions are precise they can be analysed to yield a variety of insights about interaction, such as the quantity of actions performed, the amount of information that must be perceived, and the cognitive workload involved. Task modelling notations and associated tools provide support for precise task description, but they generally provide a fixed set of constructs, which can limit their ability to model new and evolving application domains and technologies. This article describes challenges involved in using fixed notations for describing tasks. We use examples of recognized tasks analysis processes and their phases to show the need for customization of task notations, and through a series of illustrative examples, we demonstrate the benefits using our extensible task notation and tool (HAMSTERS-XL).

References

  1. John Anett. 2004. Hierarchical Task Analysis. In Diaper Dan, Stanton Neville (Eds), The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 67--82). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. John Annett, Keith Duncan.1967. Task analysis and training design. Occupational psychology, 41, 211--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Apache Maven Project, https://maven.apache.org/index.html, last access March 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nikola Banovic, Fanny Chevalier, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2012. Triggering triggers and burying barriers to customizing software. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2717--2726. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Gregor Buchholz, Peter Forbrig. 2017. Extended Features of Task Models for Specifying Cooperative Activities. In Proc. of ACM on EICS, 1, 7:1--7:21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Sybille Caffiau, Dominique Scapin, Patrick Girard, Mickaël Baron, and Francis Jambon. 2010. Increasing the expressive power of task analysis: Systematic comparison and empirical assessment of tool-supported task models. Interact. with Comput. 22, 6 (November 2010), 569--593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. (2001). Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. People and Computers XV, joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001, Springer Verlag 171--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. José Creissac Campos, Camille Fayollas, Marcelo Gonçalves, Célia Martinie, David Navarre, Philippe Palanque, and Miguel Pinto. 2017. A More Intelligent Test Case Generation Approach through Task Models Manipulation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, EICS, Article 9 (June 2017), 20 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Martin Cronel, Bruno Dumas, Philippe A. Palanque, Alexandre Canny. 2018. MIODMIT: A Generic Architecture for Dynamic Multimodal Interactive Systems. In Proc. of IFIP TC13.2 Conference on Human Centered Software Engineering, HCSE 2018, 109--129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dan Diaper. 1990. Task Analysis for Knowledge Descriptions (TAKD): The Method and an Example. In Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, D. Diaper (ed.), Ellis Horwood, pp. 108--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dan Diaper. 2004. Understanding Task Analysis. In Diaper Dan, Stanton Neville (Eds), The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 67--82). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Alan Dix, D. Ramduny-Ellis, J. Wilkinson. 2004. Trigger Analysis - understanding broken tasks. Chapter 19 in The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. D. Diaper & N. Stanton (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. pp. 381--400.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabrice Drogoul, Philippe Palanque. Design and Assessment of Systems Using Human Centered Approaches. Eurocontrol training. https://trainingzone.eurocontrol.int/ilp/pages/coursedescription.jsf?courseId=6453924&visibleMetadatas=registration-identifier,course-content-learning-form,skills,location,free-places,idd,price,languages&catalogId=896431&templateId=6812197&employeeId=-1&programmeId=-1, last accessed Feb. 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Racim Fahssi, Celia Martinie, Philippe Palanque. 2015. Enhanced Task Modelling for Systematic Identification and Explicit Representation of Human Errors. In: Abascal J., Barbosa S., Fetter M., Gross T., Palanque P., Winckler M. (eds) IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Peter Forbrig, Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, Marco Winckler, and Racim Fahssi. 2014. Rapid Task-Models Development Using Sub-models, Sub-routines and Generic Components. In Proceedings of the 5th IFIP WG 13.2 International Conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering - Volume 8742 (HCSE 2014), Stefan Sauer, Cristian Bogdan, Peter Forbrig, Regina Bernhaupt, and Marco Winckler (Eds.), Vol. 8742. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 144--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Werner Gaulke and Jürgen Ziegler. 2016. Rule-enhanced task models for increased expressiveness and compactness. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Matthias Giese, Tomasz Mistrzyk, Andreas Pfau, Gerd Szwillus, and Michael Detten. 2008. AMBOSS: A Task Modelling Approach for Safety-Critical Systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering and 7th International Workshop on Task Models and Diagrams (HCSE-TAMODIA '08), Peter Forbrig and Fabio Paternò (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 98--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Gong, R. & Elkerton, J. (1990). Designing minimal documentation using the GOMS model: A usability evaluation of an engineering approach. CHI 90 Proceedings. New York, ACM DL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Saul Greenberg. Working through Task-Centered System Design. In Diaper, D. and Stanton, N. (Eds) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2004). p49--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Valeria Gribova. A method of Context-Sensitive Help Generation Using a Task Project. International Journal on Information Theories & Applications Vol.15, pp. 391--395, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Arnaud Hamon, Philippe Palanque, José Luís Silva, Yannick Deleris, and Eric Barboni. 2013. Formal description of multi-touch interactions. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (EICS '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 207--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lode Hoste, Bruno Dumas, and Beat Signer. 2011. Mudra: a unified multimodal interaction framework. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces (ICMI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Bonnie E. John and David E. Kieras. 1996. The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 3, 4 (December 1996), 320--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Peter Johnson. 1992. Human-Computer Interaction: psychology, task analysis and software engineering, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Peter Johnson, H. Johnson and F. Hamilton. 2000. Getting the Knowledge into HCI: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Task Knowledge Structures. In. Cognitive Task Analysis. J. Schraagen, S. Chipman, V. Shalin LEAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Frédéric Jourde, Yann Laurillau, and Laurence Nigay. 2010. COMM notation for specifying collaborative and multimodal interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (EICS '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. James A. Landay. 1996. SILK: sketching interfaces like krazy. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '96), Michael J. Tauber (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 398--399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Philip Langer, Konrad Wieland, Manuel Wimmer, Jordi Cabot. (2011) From UML Profiles to EMF Profiles and Beyond. In: Bishop J., Vallecillo A. (eds) Objects, Models, Components, Patterns. TOOLS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6705. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. James Lin, Mark W. Newman, Jason I. Hong, and James A. Landay. 2000. DENIM: finding a tighter fit between tools and practice for Web site design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 510--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wendy Mackay. 1991. Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In Proc. CHI '91. ACM, 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Marco Manca, Fabio Paternò, Carmen Santoro. 2016. Collaborative Task Modelling on the Web. In: Bogdan C. et al. (eds) Human-Centered and Error-Resilient Systems Development. HESSD 2016, HCSE 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9856. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Marco Manca, Fabio Paterno, Carmen Santoro, Lucio Davide Spano. 2014. Considering task pre-conditions in model-based user interface design and generation. In Proc. of the EICS '14, 149--154, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Célia Martinie, Eric Barboni, David Navarre, Philippe Palanque, Racim Fahssi, Erwann Poupart, and Eliane Cubero-Castan. 2014. Multi-models-based engineering of collaborative systems: application to collision avoidance operations for spacecraft. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (EICS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Célia Martinie, David Navarre, Philippe Palanque, and Camille Fayollas. 2015. A generic tool-supported framework for coupling task models and interactive applications. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 244--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, Eric Barboni and Martina Ragosta. 2011. Task-model based assessment of automation levels: Application to space ground segments. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Anchorage, pp. 3267--3273.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, Elodie Bouzekri, Eric Barboni, Alexandre Canny. Principles of Task Analysis and Modelling: Understanding activity Modeling tasks and Analysing models. In Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, Jean Vanderdonckt (Ed.), Springer, to appear, https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319732282Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Célia Martinie, Philippe A. Palanque, Racim Fahssi, Jean-Paul Blanquart, Camille Fayollas, Christel Seguin. 2016. Task Model-Based Systematic Analysis of Both System Failures and Human Errors. IEEE Trans. Human-Machine Systems 46(2), 243--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, David Navarre, Marco Winckler, and Erwann Poupart. 2011. Model-based training: an approach supporting operability of critical interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems (EICS '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, Martina Ragosta, and Racim Fahssi. 2013. Extending procedural task models by systematic explicit integration of objects, knowledge and information. In Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 10 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, and Marco Winckler. 2011. Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer interaction - Volume Part III (INTERACT'11), Pedro Campos, Nuno Nunes, Nicholas Graham, Joaquim Jorge, and Philippe Palanque (Eds.), Vol. Part III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 589--609.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. J.E. McGrath. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Giulio Mori, Fabio Paternò, and Carmen Santoro. 2002. CTTE: support for developing and analyzing task models for interactive system design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28, 8 (August 2002), 797--813. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. David Navarre, Philippe Palanque, and Sandra Basnyat. 2008. A Formal Approach for User Interaction Reconfiguration of Safety Critical Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP '08), Michael D. Harrison and Mark-Alexander Sujan (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 373--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Netbeans Platform, https://netbeans.org/features/platform/index.html, last accessed September 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. O'Donnell, R. D.; Eggemeier, F. T. Workload Assessment Methodology; In K. R. Boff & L. Kaufman & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (Vol. II Cognitive Processes and Performance, pp. 42--41 - 42--49). Wiley & Sons, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Eamonn O'Neill and Peter Johnson. 2004. Participatory task modelling: users and developers modelling users' tasks and domains. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Task models and diagrams (TAMODIA '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Philippe Palanque, Rémi Bastide, Louis Dourte. Contextual Help for Free with Formal Dialogue Design. In Proc. of HCI International 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Philippe Palanque, Célia Martinie, and Camille Fayollas. 2018. Automation: Danger or Opportunity? Designing and Assessing Automation for Interactive Systems. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper C19, 4 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Philippe Palanque and Célia Martinie. 2016. Designing and Assessing Interactive Systems Using Task Models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 976--979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Philippe Palanque and Célia Martinie. 2015. Designing and Assessing Interactive Systems Using Task Models. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2465--2466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Philippe Palanque, Célia Martinie, and Marco Winckler. 2017. Designing and Assessing Interactive Systems Using Task Models. In 16th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2017 - Volume 10516, Regina Bernhaupt, Girish Dalvi, Anirudha Joshi, Devanuj K. Balkrishan, Jacki O'Neill, and Marco Winckler (Eds.), Vol. 10516. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 383--386 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Philippe A. Palanque, Amélie Schyn. 2003. A Model-Based Approach for Engineering Multimodal Interactive Systems. IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human Computer Interaction, INTERACT 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Pangoli S., Paternò F. Automatic Generation of Task-Oriented Help. ACM Symposium on UIST 1995, 181--187. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Fabio Paterno. Task models in interactive software systems, Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol 1, 2002, Publisher: World Scientific, pp. 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Fabio Paternò, Cristiano Mancini, Silvia Meniconi. ConcurTaskTrees. 1997. A Diagrammatic Notation for Specifying Task Models. In Proc. of IFIP INTERACT 1997, pp. 362--369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Fabio Paterno, Carmen Santoro, Lucio Davide Spano. 2012. Concur Tast Trees (CTT), W3C Working Group Submission, www.w3.org/2012/02/ctt/, last accessed March 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Fabio Paternò and Enrico Zini. 2004. Applying information visualization techniques to visual representations of task models. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Task models and diagrams (TAMODIA '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 105--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. David Pinelle, Carl Gutwin, and Saul Greenberg. 2003. Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modelling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 10, 4 (December 2003), 281--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Martina Ragosta, Célia Martinie, Philippe Palanque, David Navarre, and Mark Alexander Sujan. 2015. Concept Maps for Integrating Modelling Techniques for the Analysis and Re-Design of Partly-Autonomous Interactive Systems. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Application and Theory of Automation in Command and Control Systems (ATACCS '15), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. J. Roschelle & S.D. Teasley. 1995. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69--197).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Daniel Sinnig, Maik Wurdel, Peter Forbrig, Patrice Chalin, Ferhat Khendek. Practical Extensions for Task Models. In proc. of TAMODIA 2007, 42--55, Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Gerrit C. van der Veer, Bert F. Lenting, Bas A.J. Bergevoet. 1996. GTA: Groupware task analysis - Modelling complexity, Acta Psychologica, Volume 91, Issue 3, pages 297--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Chi Thanh Vi and Marianna Obrist. 2018. Sour Promotes Risk-Taking: An Investigation into the Effect of Taste on Risk-Taking Behaviour in Humans. Scientific Reports 8, 1: 7987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Markel Vigo, Carmen Santoro and Fabio Paternò. 2017. The usability of task modelling tools. IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), Raleigh, NC, 2017, pp. 95--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Marco Winckler, Philippe Palanque, and Carla M. D. S. Freitas. 2004. Tasks and scenario-based evaluation of information visualization techniques. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Task models and diagrams (TAMODIA '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Analysing and Demonstrating Tool-Supported Customizable Task Notations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!