view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

t/expected-sample-pbib.html  view on Meta::CPAN

is an example of how to react upon changes in the physical
environment. As mentioned, the virtual part of the bridge is shown as
soon as a physical object is detected on the physical part of the
bridge. Thus, Passage needs to keep a representation of the detected
physical objects and the location (esp. bridge) where they have been
sensed (fig. ). This is part of the environment model. Additionally,
the sensors used for detecting physical objects belong to the
environment model as well.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Besides the physical
environment, other contextual information &ndash; such as the current
task, project, or presence of co-workers &ndash; could influence the
behavior of the software, so long as this information is available to
the application. This part refers to the <I>logical context</I> of
the application.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Software with
functionality depending on physical objects and their properties, or
other aspects of the user&rsquo;s environment (req. ) is called
<I>context-aware </I>(Salber et al., 1999). There is a
strong need for context-aware applications in ubiquitous computing
environments, as the large number of available devices, services, and
tools can be a burden for the user if the complexity for explicit
interaction becomes too high. An environment designed to support the
users needs, needs to aim at <I>implicit</I> interaction
(Schmidt, 2000). This can be accomplished by using changes in
the real world&rsquo;s state to trigger software functionality.<SUP><A CLASS="sdfootnoteanc" NAME="sdfootnote2anc" HREF="#sdfootnote2sym"><SUP>2</SUP></A></SUP>
Therefore, the environment model must be capable of expressing
relevant information, such as spatial relationships between physical
objects.</P>
<H3 CLASS="western"><A NAME="sInteractionModelConcept"></A>Interaction
Model: Presentation and Interaction</H3>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">To be able to
support different styles of interaction (req. , ), the interaction
model specifies how different interaction styles can be defined. The
term used here describes a part of the software architecture, and
should not be confused with the &ldquo;interaction model&rdquo;
describing the &ldquo;look and feel&rdquo; of a user interface at a
conceptual level as defined by [ :inline |
[BeaudouinLafon-PostWIMPModel]]. Instead, it is a generalized view of
the &ldquo;interaction model&rdquo; described by [ :inline |
[Suite-CouplingUIs]].</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">As shown in figure
4-2.2, the interaction model defines a way to interact with all other
basic models. This is necessary, as all models can define aspects and
functions that can be represented for and accessed by the user. For
example, a data object like a &ldquo;text&rdquo; object often has a
directly attached view and controller, enabling direct interaction
with the text; then, interaction and data model communicate directly,
bypassing user interface and application models. Alternatively, a
&ldquo;visual interaction area&rdquo; being part of the user
interface model, provides functionality that has an immediate visual
representation rendered by the interaction model. In other cases, the
interaction model will not access the data model directly. Instead,
it is associated with an appropriate application model as a mediator
to the data model. This way, the interaction style can be adapted
depending on which application model is used to access a data model.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">As an appropriate
interaction style depends on the available interaction devices and
the associated user interface, a suitable interaction model can be
chosen depending on the environment and user-interface model. For
visual-based interaction, an adapted version of the
model-view-controller concept [[MVC-Cookbook],
[COAST-ooSyncGroupware]] has proven successful. However, the &ldquo;model&rdquo;
of the model-view-controller concept is not further structured. It
can refer to each of data, application, user interface, or
environment model.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Passage defines an
interactive visual representation (for the virtual part of the
bridge) and physical actions as input (placing objects on the
physical part of the bridge). Consequently, its interaction model
uses both a visual interaction model (see section ) and a sensor
model providing the basis for detecting physical objects (see section
).</P>
<H2 CLASS="western"><A NAME="sConceptualSharing"></A>2.3Second
Dimension: Coupling and Sharing</H2>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Whenever multiple
devices are involved in a software system, the question arises, which
parts of the system should be local to a device or shared between
several. This has to be clarified for both the application code and
its state. While <I>distributing code</I> among devices is a
technical question unique to every application, <I>sharing state</I>
has conceptual implications, which this section addresses.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Today, many
applications still run entirely local to a single computer, or access
only data that is distributed over a network. Aiming at synchronous
collaboration, crucial aspects of traditional CSCW systems are <I>access
to shared data</I> and <I>coupling the applications </I>of
collaborating users (Dewan and Choudhary, 1995). Therefore, coupling has to
be applied to both the data and the application model
(Schuckmann et al., 1999).</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">In the context of
ubiquitous computing environments, this view has to be extended. In
addition to data and application, also information about the physical
environment, e.g., the presence of nearby users or other available
interaction devices, has to be exchanged by different devices and
applications.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">As discussed above,
in a ubiquitous computing environment elements of the user interface
can be distributed among several machines (req. ) or among different
devices (req. ). Based on the separation of concerns that has been
previously identified, Dewan&rsquo;s definition of coupling
(Dewan and Choudhard, 1991) can be refined. Coupling can now be
defined as <I>sharing the same interaction, user interface, or
editing (application) state</I> among several users or devices.
Coupling can thus simply be implemented as accessing the same user
interface or application model. This is an important benefit of using
shared user interface and application models.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Depending on how
much state is shared, the <I>degree of coupling</I> can be
controlled. If all involved user interface and editing state is
shared, a tightly coupled collaboration mode is realized; if only the
same data model is shared, users work loosely coupled (req. ). This
is related to the coupling model described in (Dewan and Choudhary, 1995).</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">Even, if some models
are not coupled, one can profit from sharing environment, user
interface, and application models. As the information encapsulated in
the models is accessible to all clients, it is possible to provide
<I>awareness information</I> in the user interface. Typical for CSCW
applications is the provision of workspace or activity awareness
(Gutwin et al., 1996; Nomura et al., 1998). This
can easily be realized if the application model including all editing
state is shared (Schuckmann et al., 1999). While tightly coupling the user

t/expected-sample-pbib.html  view on Meta::CPAN

<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">With the three
dimensions that have been discussed in detail, the overall conceptual
model can be visualized as shown in figure 4-2.4. Looking at the
dimension of the level of abstraction and the dimension of the
separation of concerns, these two dimensions open a grid, which can
be used to place all software components or assign software
functionality. In contrast, the degree of coupling specifies the
level of collaboration for this functionality rather that defining or
categorizing functionality itself.</P>
<P LANG="de-DE" ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-top: 0.39cm; margin-bottom: 0.39cm; widows: 0; orphans: 0; page-break-after: avoid">
<IMG SRC="sample_html_m512dd214.gif" NAME="Graphic5" ALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH=346 HEIGHT=186 BORDER=0></P>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 0.49cm; margin-right: 0.66cm; margin-bottom: 0.35cm"><A NAME="fDesignDimensionsRWApp"></A>
<FONT FACE="Helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 9pt">Figure
<SPAN LANG="">4</SPAN>&nbsp;2.4.<SPAN LANG=""> Notation for the three
design dimensions </SPAN>of the BEACH conceptual model</FONT></FONT></P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">The BEACH conceptual
model can be used as the basis to structure architectures and
applications for ubiquitous computing and roomware environments.
Figure 4-2.4 suggests a graphical notation that can be used in design
diagrams to denote the position of classes within the design
dimensions of the conceptual model. This aids developers in
understanding the design of a ubiquitous computing application.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">In favor of being
applicable to a wide range of applications and architectures, the
model specifies a coarse-grained structure at a high level of
abstraction. Thereby, the conceptual model leaves much freedom for
application developers and architects to choose approaches
appropriate for the problem at hand. Foremost, the conceptual model
does not impose a restricted set of <I>architectural styles</I>
(Jacobson et al., 1992; Phillips, 1999). Rather, many
architectural styles can be used to implement the model. The same is
true for the <I>distribution architecture</I>
(Phillips, 1999). Depending on the constraints of the
platform and requirements in terms of collaboration, an arbitrary
distribution architecture can be selected.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">To show how the
BEACH conceptual model can be applied, the next sections presents the
BEACH software framework and a sample application that was built
using the framework.</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.11cm">[### again some
stuff removed ###]</P>
<H1 CLASS="western">3References</H1>
<P STYLE="margin-left: 0.5cm; text-indent: -0.5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm">
<FONT FACE="Times, serif"><FONT SIZE=2 STYLE="font-size: 9pt">Alencar, P. S. C., Cowan, D. D., Nelson, T., Fontoura, M. F., and Lucena, C. J. P., 1999. Viewpoints and Frameworks in Component-Based Software Design. In: Fayad, M. E., Schmidt, D. C., an...
Anderson, G. E., Graham, T. N., and Wright, T. N., 2000. Dragonfly: Linking Conceptual and Implementation Architectures of Multiuser Interactive Systems. In: Proceedings of the 22st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'00), ACM Pres...
Beaudouin-Lafon, M., 2000. Instrumental Interaction: An Interaction Model for Designing Post-WIMP User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2000 conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI'00), ACM Press, New York, NY.
Brummit, B., Meyers, B., Krumm, J., Kern, A., and Shafer, S., 2000. Easyliving: Technologies for Intelligent Environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing (HUC'00), vol. 1927, no. 1927 in Lectur...
Coutaz, J., 1997. PAC-ing the Architecture of Your User Interface. In: Proceedings of the 4th Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specication and Verication of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS'97), Springer, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 15-32. http://citeseer.n...
Demeyer, S., 1996. Zypher - Tailorability as a Link from Object-Oriented Software Engineering to Open Hypermedia, Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Departement Informatica.
Dewan, P. and Choudhard, R., 1991. Flexible user interface coupling in a collaborative system. In: Human factors in computing systems conference proceedings on Reaching through technology, ACM Press, pp. 41-48. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/108844.10885...
Dewan, P. and Choudhary, R., 1995. Coupling the User Interfaces of a Multiuser Program, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 2 (1), 1-39.
Dijkstra, E. W., 1968. The structure of the "THE"-multiprogramming system, Communications of the ACM 11 (5), 341-346. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/363095.363143.
Edwards, W. K. and LaMarca, A., 1999. Balancing Generality and Specificity in Document Management Systems. In: INTERACT '99, IOS Press, pp. 187-195.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J., 1995. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Addison Wesley.
Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S., 1998. Design for Individuals, Design for Groups: Tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1998 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, pp. 207-216. http://doi.acm....
Gutwin, C., Roseman, M., and Greenberg, S., 1996. A Usability Study of Awareness Widgets in a Shared Workspace Groupware System. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp....
Hong, J. I. and Landay, J. A., 2001. An Infrastructure Approach to Context-Aware Computing, Human-Computer Interaction 16 (2--4), 287-303.
Jacobsen, E. E., 2000. Concepts and Language Mechanisms in Software Modelling, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Southern Denmark. http://www.mip.sdu.dk/sweat.
Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., and Övergaard, G., 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering, a Use Case Driven Approach, ACM Press, Addison Wesley.
Johanson, B., Hutchins, G., Winograd, T., and Stone, M., 2002. PointRight: Experience with Flexible Input Redirection in Interactive Workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST'02), vol...
Krasner, G. E. and Pope, S. T., 1988. A Cookbook for Using the Model-View-Controller User Interface Paradigma in Smalltalk-80, Journal of Object Oriented Programming (JOOP) 1 (3), 26-49.
Marsic, I., 2001. An Architecture for Heterogeneous Groupware Applications. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 475-484. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/marsic01architecture.html.
Nigay, L. and Coutaz, J., 1991. Building User Interfaces: Organizing Software Agents. In: Esprit'91 Conference Proceedings, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 707-719. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/nigay91building.html, http://iihm.imag.fr/publs/1991/.
Nomura, T., Hayashi, K., Hazama, T., and Gudmundson, S., 1998. Interlocus: Workspace Configuration Mechanisms for Activity Awareness. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'98), ACM Press, New York, NY...
Nowack, P., 1999. Structures and Interactions - Characterizing Object-Oriented Software Architecture, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Software Engineering and Technology, University of Southern Denmark. http://www.mip.sdu.dk/sweat.
Olsen, Jr., D. R., Nielsen, S. T., and Parslow, D., 2001. Join and Capture: A Model for Nomadic Interaction. In: Proceedings of 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology (UIST'01), vol. 3, no. 2 in CHI Letters, ACM Press, Ne...
Parnas, D. L., 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules, Communications of the ACM 15 (12), 1053-1058. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/361598.361623.
Patterson, J. F., 1991. Comparing the Programming Demands of Single-User and Multi-User Applications. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'91), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 87-94.
Phillips, W. G., 1999. Architectures for Synchronous Groupware, Tech. Rep., Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6. http://phillips.rmc.ca/greg/pub/.
Pier, K. and Landay, J. A., 1992. Issues for Location-independent Interfaces, Tech. Rep., Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA, USA. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~landay/research/publications/LII.ps, http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/pier92issues.html.
Prante, T., 2001. Designing for Usable Disappearance - Mediating Coherence, Scope, and Orientation. In: Workshop Proceedings "Distributed and Disappearing User Interfaces in Ubiquitous Computing", ACM CHI'01. http://www.teco.edu/chi2001ws/proceedings...
Prante, T., Magerkurth, C., and Streitz, N. A., 2002. Developing CSCW Tools for Idea Finding - Empirical Results and Implications for Design. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'02), ACM Press, New ...
Roberts, D., Brant, J., and Johnson, R., 1997. A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk. In: Pattern Languages of Program Design, vol. 3 of Software Patterns, Addison Wesley, ch. 25. http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/~brant/Refactory/.
Román, M., Hess, C. K., and et al., 2001. GaiaOS: An Infrastructurre for Active Spaces, Tech. Rep., Universiy of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Computer Science, 1304 West Springfield Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801-2987 USA. http://choices.cs...
Roseman, M. and Greenberg, S., 1992. GROUPKIT: a groupware toolkit for building real-time conferencing applications. In: Proceedings of the conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, ACM Press, pp. 43-50. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/143457.143...
Roseman, M. and Greenberg, S., 1996. Building Real Time Groupware with GroupKit, A Groupware Toolkit, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 3 (1), 66-106.
Roth, J., 2002. Seven Challenges for Developers of Mobile Groupware. In: Workshop "Mobile Ad Hoc Collaboration", CHI 2002, Minneapolis.
Salber, D., Dey, A. K., and Abowd, G. D., 1999. The Context Toolkit: Aiding the Development of Context-Enabled Applications. In: Proceeding of the CHI 99 conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI'99), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 434-441....
Schmidt, A., 2000. Implicit Human Computer Interaction Through Context, Personal Technologies 4 (2+3), 191-199. http://www.teco.edu/.
Schuckmann, C., Kirchner, L., Schümmer, J., and Haake, J. M., 1996. Designing Object-oriented Synchronous Groupware with COAST. In: Proceedings of the ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. ...
Schuckmann, C., Schümmer, J., and Seitz, P., 1999. Modeling Collaboration using Shared Objects. In: Proceedings of International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'99), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 189-198. http://www.opencoast.o...
Shafer, S. A. N., 2001. Ubiquitous Computing and the EasyLiving Project. In: 40th Anniversary Symposium, Osaka Electro-Communications University. http://www.research.microsoft.com/easyliving/.
Sousa, J. and Garlan, D., 2002. Aura: An Architectural Framework for User Mobility in Ubiquitous Computing Environments. In: Software Architecture: System Design, Development, and Maintenance (Proceedings of the 3rd Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on So...
Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S., and Tatar, D., 1987. WYSIWIS Revised: Early Experiences with Multi-User Interfaces, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 2 (5), 147-167.
Streitz, N. A., Geißler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., and Steinmetz, R., 1999. i-LAND: An interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation. In: Proceeding of the CHI 99 conference on Human f...
Streitz, N. A., Prante, T., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Tandler, P., and Magerkurth, C., 2002. Roomware: The Second Generation. In: Video Proceedings and Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'02), ACM Press, New...
Streitz, N. A., Rexroth, P., and Holmer, T., 1997. Does 'roomware' matter? Investigating the role of personal and public information devices and their combination in meeting room collaboration. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-S...
Streitz, N. A., Tandler, P., Müller-Tomfelde, C., and Konomi, S., 2001. Roomware: Towards the next generation of human-computer interaction based on an integrated design of real and virtual worlds. In: Carroll, J. A. (ed.), Human-Computer Interaction...
Succi, G., Predonzani, P., Valerio, A., and Vernazza, T., 1999. Frameworks and Domain Models: Two Sides of the Same Coin. In: Fayad, M. E., Schmidt, D. C., and Johnson, R. E. (eds.), Building Application Frameworks: Object-Oriented Foundations of Fra...
Szekely, P., Luo, P., and Neches, R., 1992. Facilitating the Exploration of Interface Design Alternatives: The HUMANOID Model of Interface Design. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'92), ACM Press, pp. 50...
Tandler, P., 2001. Software Infrastructure for Ubiquitous Computing Environments: Supporting Synchronous Collaboration with Heterogeneous Devices. In: Abowd, G. D., Brummitt, B., and Shafer, S. (eds.), Proceedings of UbiComp'01: Ubiquitous Computing,...
Tandler, P., Prante, T., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Streitz, N., and Steinmetz, R., 2001. ConnecTables: Dynamic Coupling of Displays for the Flexible Creation of Shared Workspaces. In: Proceedings of 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software...
Tarpin-Bernard, F., David, B., and Primet, P., 1998. Frameworks and patterns for synchronous groupware: AMF-C approach. In: IFIP Working Conference on Engineering for HCI: EHCI'98, pp. 225-242. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/439075.html.
Taylor, R. N., Medvidovic, N., and et al., K. M. A., 1996. A Component- and Message-Based Architectural Style for GUI Software, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22 (6), 390-406.
Thevenin, D. and Coutaz, J., 1999. Plasticity of User Interfaces: Framework and Research Agenda. In: Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT'99), IOS Press, pp. 110-117.
Urnes, T. and Graham, T. N., 1999. Flexibly Mapping Synchronous Groupware Architectures to Distributed Implementations. In: Proceedings of Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS'99), Springer, Heidelberg, New York, pp. ...
VisualWorks User's Guide. ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc., 999 East Arques Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, Revision 2.0 (Software Release 2.5), 1995.
Weiser, M., 1993. Some Computer Science Issues In Ubiquitous Computing, Communications of the ACM 36 (7), 75-84.
Winograd, T. and Guimbretière, F., 1999. Visual Instruments for an Interactive Mural. In: Proceeding of the CHI 99 conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI'99) extended abstracts, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 234-235. http://graphics.sta...
<DIV ID="sdfootnote1">
	<P CLASS="sdfootnote-western"><A CLASS="sdfootnotesym" NAME="sdfootnote1sym" HREF="#sdfootnote1anc">1</A>
	Of course, this is a simplified view on the research areas,
	focussing on their contributions relevant within the context of this
	paper.</P>
</DIV>
<DIV ID="sdfootnote2">
	<P CLASS="sdfootnote-western"><A CLASS="sdfootnotesym" NAME="sdfootnote2sym" HREF="#sdfootnote2anc">2</A>
	However, using detected context to trigger functionality always has
	the danger of relying on misinterpreted information, which can be
	very annoying for users.</P>
</DIV>
<DIV TYPE=FOOTER>
	<P STYLE="text-indent: 0.4cm; margin-top: 0.77cm; margin-bottom: 0cm">
	<FONT FACE="Times, serif">Submitted to JSS, special issue on
	UbiTools	v3.1, 04.11.02	<SDFIELD TYPE=PAGE SUBTYPE=RANDOM FORMAT=PAGE>11</SDFIELD>/<SDFIELD TYPE=DOCSTAT SUBTYPE=PAGE FORMAT=ARABIC>11</SDFIELD></FONT></P>
</DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>